BHOJRAJ RAMESHCHANDRA Vs. GHANSHYAM DAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 8 -11 -1996 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh is Civil Appeal No. 2 -A/95, arising out of judgment and decree dated 2 -4 -1992 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class -II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 65 -A/85.

(2.) THE material facts necessary for determination of this appeal are as follows. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 65 -A/85 against the appellants claiming that he was the landlord of the suit property and the appellants were his tenants at the rate of Rs. 200/ - (Rupees Two Hundred) per month. The respondent claimed that he acquired the suit property by virtue of a registered gift -deed dated 3 -5 -1965 executed by Rajpal Goyal and Indrapal Goyal. He claimed that the suit property was let out by him to the appellants for business purpose. He claimed that appellants were liable to be evicted under Section 12 (1) (f) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act') as the respondent wanted to start his business at Raigarh and he had no alternative accommodation of his own. The second ground for eviction was based on the provisions of Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. It was claimed that the appellants had denied the title of the respondent in the written statement and consequently adversely and substantially affected the interest of the respondent/landlord and thereby furnished him a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act'. The respondent pleaded another set of facts which gave him a right to evict the appellants under the aforesaid section. He stated that the suit premises were let out for non -residential purpose, but the appellants used a part of it for residential purpose without the consent of the landlord/respondent and thereby did an act which was inconsistent with the purpose for which they were let in. The respondent raised a ground under Section 12 (1) (k) of 'the Act' by asserting that appellants had used the terrace as the garden and consequently coused substantial damage to the house. The respondent took the plea of non -payment of rent even after service of notice of demand as a ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of 'the Act'. The last ground for eviction pleaded by the respondent was that due to heart attack, he wanted to wind -up his business at Madras and start afresh his business of iron and steel at Raigarh and he pleaded further that he had to alternative accommodation of his own at Raigarh which was suitable for business of iron and steel.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent and held that suit property was let out at the rate of Rs. 200/ - (Rupees Two Hundred) per month by the respondent to the appellants. It held that suit property was let out for non -residential purpose and the appellants had used these premises for residential purpose without the consent of the landlord. It was held by the trial Court that the appellants had denied the title of respondent in written statement and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to a decree under Section 12 (1) (c) of 'the Act' on both the counts (i) that the appellants had utilized the suit premises for residential purpose without obtaining any permission of the respondent and (ii) that they had denied the title of the respondent. The trial Court further held that the appellants had caused damage to the suit property by cultivating a garden on the terrace of suit property and, therefore, they liable to be evicted. The trial Court also granted decree to the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent for opening a shop and office for business. It held that the respondent did not have alternative suitable accommodation for that purpose in the town of Raigarh. The trial Court declined to grant decree under Section 12 (1) (a) of 'the Act' as that ground was not proved.