SUNIL Vs. VIMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-7-2000 passed by 9th ADJ, Gwalior in F. A. No. 6-A of 1998 whereby, setting aside judgment and decree dated 6-1-1998 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 485-A of 1994 and decreeing the suit for eviction of respondents/plaintiffs on the ground under section 12 (1) (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act' ). This judgment shall also dispose of Second Appeal no. 344 of 2000 arising out of the same impugned judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for eviction of suit premises against original tenant Laxman Das on the ground under Sections 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (b) and 12 (1) (i) of the Act. Laxman Das was tenant in the suit premises since 1976. Rent of suit premises was Rs. 80/- per month. The suit premise is situated in BARF WALI GALI Daulat Ganj, Lashker. The suit premises is shown in the plaint map. No rent has been paid since 1-4-1978 to 31-10-1978 by tenant. Original tenant Laxman Das has parted with the possession of the suit premises. Kishanlal has been in occupation of the suit premises as sub tenant of Laxman Das. Laxman Das is residing in another house. On 26-9-1978, plaintiffs served a notice to pay arrears of rent to the defendants/appellants but defendants have not paid arrears of rent and did not vacate the suit premises. After death of Laxman Das, respondents were brought on record as his L. Rs.

(3.) APPELLANTS/defendants filed their written statement. They pleaded that in suit premises, Parashuram Sindhi was tenant in 1947 at the rent of Rs. 20/-per month. He vacated the suit premises in 1954. Thereafter, Dwarika Prasad was tenant till 1966 and rent of the suit premises was Rs. 30/- per month. Thereafter, the respondents were residing in the suit premises as tenant and initially, the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 70/- per month. In the year 1976, the rent was enhanced from Rs. 70/- per month to Rs. 80/- per month. Mukhtiar aam of plaintiff Radhakishan gave assurance to the respondents to repair suit premises within one month and he agreed that if he will not repair the suit premises within one month, then, defendants shall themselves get it repaired and the expenses of the repair shall be adjusted towards the accrued rent. Consequently, respondents spent Rs. 1000/- on repair. They are entitled to get adjusted this amount towards arrears of rent and also the amount which defendants have paid towards the electricity connection. Defendants took water connection and spent Rs. 600/- towards it. They are entitled to get adjusted this amount towards arrears of rent. Defendants insisted to pay rent to the plaintiffs but they refused it. On 30-10-1978, defendants sent arrears of rent by money order but it has been refused by respondent/plaintiff. Defendants are not at fault in this respect.