GULKHAN Vs. OM PRAKASH KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004 passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No.44/04 whereby the suit for eviction filed by the respondent has been decreed against him under Section 12 (1) (a), (c) and (e) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short "the Act").

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant in respect of accommodation comprising two rooms on the ground floor of House No. 1582 situated at Purani Basti Ranjhi, Jabalpur. As per averments of the plaint the defendant / respondent was inducted in such accommodation for residential purpose in the month of April 1997 on monthly tenancy @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. The same was enhanced in the year 1999 @ Rs. 1,200/- p.m. The appellant committed default in payment of rent and did not pay the same since 1999. On making it's demand the son of the respondent Rajendra Khatri was subjected to misbehave and beating by the appellant. The other part of the house is in possession of the respondent. The same is used for keeping the domestic goods. The appellant tried to take forcefully possession of the first floor by breaking the lock on 22.3.2002. The same was reported to the police by said Rajendra Khatri for which the appellant is facing the criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 448, 294 and 506 of IPC. Besides this the appellant has polluted the well situated in such house by throwing the garbage in it. The electricity connection of such accommodation was disconnected on account of non-payment of its- bill by the appellant. Subsequent to it without consent of the respondent the appellant took the new electricity connection in such accommodation. The aforesaid acts of the appellant are not only contrary to the terms and conditions of the tenancy but also contrary to the interest of the respondent. Thereby the appellant has become nuisance in such accommodation. Besides this the appellant filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the Court of Third Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur against Rajendra Khatri the son of the respondent stating him the landlord and denied the title of the respondent, such act of the appellant comes under the purview of nuisance. In the family of the respondent there are 13 members including three dependant sons, daughter in laws, grand sons and grand daughters. He did not have the sufficient accommodation of his own at Jabalpur for their comfortable residence. Thus, he is in bonafide need of the disputed accommodation for the residence of his family members. On the aforesaid ground the respondent gave a notice to the appellant on 20.5.2003 for vacating the premises but in spite it's service the same was not complied with on which the present suit was filed by the respondent.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant by admitting the tenancy the same was said to be @ Rs.200/- p.m. while the other averments of the plaint are denied. The grounds of eviction mentioned by the respondent are denied. In addition it was pleaded that on making demand by the son of respondent Rajendra Prasad Khatri on 1.11.97 the appellant gave him Rs.20,000/- on assurance that same will be adjusted towards the future rent. In view of such advance payment he did not commit any default. In the year 1997 such house was damaged due to calamity of earthquake, on which the respondent demanded sum from him for it's repairing. As the appellant was awarded some compensation as sufferer of earthquake. On denying the same being aggrieved the respondent filed the suit. The respondent's son wanted to evict the appellant forcefully through some unsocial elements, therefore to protect the possession of accommodation he filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the son of respondent. It is further pleaded that respondent is also having two-storied house comprising ten rooms in which he is residing conveniently with his family. Besides this he is also having an accommodation comprising six rooms situated near Money dairy at Pariyat. In such circumstance the need of the respondent is neither bonafide nor genuine and prayed for dismissal of the suit.