PARASRAM BEGAMAL Vs. DAMADILAL RAMDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendants against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the lower appellate Court. The decree is based on two grounds, namely, that the house was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for carrying on their own business and that the defendants were in arrears of rent. Both these grounds are challenged before me.

(2.) THE house in question is situate in Bazar Chowk, Satna, while the plaintiff's reside at village Nadan, Tahsil Maihar, where they carry on their business. THE plaintiff's case is that the house was given to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 275 for the purposes of business ; that between the time the house was rented out and the date of the suit the family of the plaintiffs has grown in volume; that the income from the business carried on at Nadan is not sufficient for the upkeep of the family and there is no possibility of expanding the business at Nadan; that the adult members of the family, namely Jawaharlal and Radhyeshyam, under the guidance of Tirath Prasad, desire to start the wholesale business in cloth and Kirana at Satna, where they have no other accommodation of their own, for this purpose; that the necessity of starting the business is genuine for the upkeep of the growing family; and that the family has sufficient experience of the business. It was also pleaded that the defendants were in arrears of rent from 1-10-1961 till 31 -5-1962 which was also not paid even after notice till the filing of the suit.

(3.) ON the question of arrears of rent, the lower appellate Court, on the basis of two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Mohanlal v. Kanwar Sen(AIR1954 Ml. 480) and Saligram v. Jaigopal (AIR 1955 All.350.), held that sending of the cheque was not tender of the rent according to law and that the plaintiffs were within their rights in refusing to accept the same and that the default thus continued till the filing of the suit. The lower appellate Court further held that the defendants failed to apply under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act to get the rent provisionally fixed by the Court; nor did they deposit the amount at the rate provisionally fixed by the Court. Not only that but the amount deposited by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 175 was subsequently withdrawn by them. Even at the appellate stage the monthly rent was not deposited. The defendants, therefore, were not entitled to any protection under section 12 (3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment.