GANPATLAL Vs. NARAYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal against an eviction decree was admitted for its final hearing on the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention advanced a few facts are necessary to be noted. Plaintiff-respondent is a retired in-charge of engine room of Dhar power house. After 30 years of service, in the year 1964 he retired from service. He owns a house in Dhar, which comprises of six rooms. The three-room accommodation in his possession is in a dilapidated condition, while the portion occupied by the appellant is in a habitable condition which the plaintiff-respondent claims for his own bonafide requirement and seeks eviction on that ground. Plaintiff-respondent is presently living in Indore. The suit house is situated in Dhar where he desires to shift.

(3.) THE appellant made an offer before the lower appellate Court in writing, which was also repeated before this Court that he was prepared to carry out the necessary repairs in the portion presently occupied by the plaintiff so as to make it habitable and if the plaintiff so desires the defendant was prepared to shift to the portion which is presently occupied by him. He also made it clear that the amount so spent on repairs would not be charged to the plaintiff, either by way of adjustment towards rent or in any other manner. Similar offer and the peculiar facts of this case that the plaintiff, a retired person getting Rs. 145/- per month, with no other member in his family except a married daughter at Indore, that his bonafide need requires to be viewed and judged. The lower appellate Court has brushed aside the offer holding that the law does not provide for it, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Ram Deo v. Umrao Singh, 1980 MP RCJ 99.