SAROJA Vs. SUPERSONIC PLASTIC PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28. 02. 2001 passed by First Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2000, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) (c) and (e) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "act")was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellant land-lady Smt. Saroja Thawani filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit on 08. 06. 1992 alleging that the appellant is owner of a house No. E-25, LIG Colony, Indore (which shall be referred hereinafter as "suit Property" ). It was alleged that the suit property was let out by the appellant to the respondent vide rent note dated 07. 10. 1976 on rent @ Rs. 601/- per month. It was alleged that the purpose of tenancy was residential and the tenancy commenced w. e. f. 15. 10. 1976. Further case of the appellant was that the respondent is in arrears of rent w. e. f 15. 01. 1990 and a habitual defaulter. It was alleged that a false FIR was lodged by Shri B. T. Agrawal, director of the respondent against Jaiprakash Thawani (brother in law of the appellant) in July 1991. It was alleged that because of the false complaint Jaiprakash thawani was required to run from pillar to post to save himself from the arrest by the police. It was alleged that the respondent prepared an agreement to sell the suit property in its favour and demanded execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that appellant never entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the respondent. Further case of the appellant was that appellant requires the suit property bonafide for her residence. It was alleged that appellant is residing in united States of America and has decided to come back and settle at Indore with her family. It was also alleged that appellant has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of her own in the city of Indore. It was alleged that vide notice dated 08. 03. 1992 respondent was asked to vacate the suit accommodation, which was duly served on the respondent on 13. 04. 1992. On the basis of these allegations, it was prayed that a decree of eviction be passed.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the respondent by filing the written statement wherein, it was not disputed that the appellant is the owner of the suit accommodation. It was also not disputed that the status of respondent is tenant @ of Rs. 601/- per month. However, it was denied that the tenancy of the respondent was for residential purposes. It was alleged that the respondent is also running its office in the suit accommodation. Thus the tenancy of the respondent is composite in nature i. e. residential cum nonresidential. It was denied that the respondent was in arrears of rent and the respondent is habitual defaulter. So far as lodging of FIR is concerned it was alleged that Jaiprakash Thawani (brother in law of the appellant) who happens to be an officer of the Bank came to the suit accommodation where the respondent is residing in the month of July 1991 alongwith unsocial elements to get the suit accommodation vacated. It was alleged that in the circumstances FIR was lodged by the respondent which has not caused any nuisance.