VIDHYABAI Vs. MOHAMMAD SALIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC arising out of judgment and decree dated 06-03-2006 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.6-A/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2001 passed by learned 9th Civil Judge Class -I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.30- A/1998 has been reversed and suit of plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that predecessor of appellants (landlord) filed a civil suit on 08-07-1989 seeking eviction of respondents/tenants under Section 12(1)(a), 12(1) (b), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). As per plaint allegations, the plaintiff was owner of a house situate at Chhapparwal Pul, Falka Bazaar, Lashkar Gwalior in which one shop rented out to defendant No.1 Mohd. Sharif Khan for the purpose of establishment of shop for repairing of bicycles. It was further pleaded that after some time defendant No.1 removed his possession and started his work of repairing of bicycles in other shop and without prior permission of plaintiff inducted defendant No.2, his brother Saleem Khan (as sub tenant). Grievance of the plaintiff was that he is Brahmin by caste and shop was taken by defendant No.1 for bicycle repairing but later on by subletting the shop to his brother, he started an abattoir (slaughter house) wherein, not only animals were cut down but their wings, feather, legs, neck and other remnants were spread out in front of shop where blood used to ooze out and create repulsive scene for a person who does not eat or like non-vegetarian food. Further pleading in the plaint was regarding bona fide requirement for his son Rajendra to start business of electric goods for which according to the plaintiff no other suitable alternative non-residential accommodation was available in the municipal limit of Gwalior. During pendency of the suit, original plaintiff had died, therefore, his L.Rs. (present appellants) were taken on record.

(3.) After service defendant No.1 remained ex parte and after his death his L.Rs. Preferred written statement and admitted the fact about sub tenancy. Defendant No.2 Mohd. Saleem Khan filed the written statement and rebutted the claim made by the plaintiff herein. According to the written statement, defendant No.2 has taken the shop on rent which is still in his possession wherein an abattoir exists and he denied the allegations of nuisance. Bona fide requirement as pleaded by the plaintiff was also rebutted as according to defendant No.2 plaintiff had sufficient non residential accommodation to start business. He further denied the allegation of arrears of rent.