AHUJA SAW MILLS Vs. SANTOSH ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal against plaintiff whose suit has been decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal filed by the defendant has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) THE plaintiff firm filed suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and also for mesne profit against defendant on the averment that plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm. The defendant is also a registered partnership firm. According to the plaintiff, a saw mill was given to the defendant on hire at the rate of Rs.l,100/ - p.m. on the basis of an oral agreement which later on reduced into writing on 18.8.1979 and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the defendant was required to deliver possession back to the plaintiff but he failed to comply the said condition. According to the plaintiff, the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") are not applicable and, therefore, the plaintiff firm is not at all required to establish any of the ground envisaged under section 12(1) of the Act. In the alternative it has also been prayed that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act are applicable, even then since the plaintiff is in bona fide need of the suit accommodation and the plaintiff firm has no reasonably suitable accommodation of its own, the suit be decreed under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. It has also been pleaded that the defendant is in arrears of rent as well as the title of plaintiff has been denied, therefore, a decree of eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(a) and (c) of the Act be also passed.

(3.) THE defendant denied the plaint averments and submitted that the firm of plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm and it has been denied that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. It has also been pleaded in the written stat ement that in absence of any legal notice as required under the law to determine the tenancy of the premises let out to defendant firm, the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable. On these premised submissions, it has been contended that the suit be dismissed.