NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. NIRMALCHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal under section 96 of CPC has been preferred by the appellant arising out of judgment and decree dated 10/10/2012 passed by 10th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.71-A/2010 whereby suit filed by respondent/ plaintiff has been decreed and appellant/ defendant has been directed to vacate the suit premises. The suit was filed under Section 12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1961"), out of which decree under Section 12(1)(c) and (f) of the Act of 1961 was granted and under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are that respondent/ plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the grounds of Sections 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act of 1961 with the allegations that over the defendant who is tenant of the plaintiff, rent @ 2,000/- per month w.e.f. 01/01/2008 amounting to Rs. 30,000/- is due and plaintiff is doing business of ladies wear (Saris and Shawls) in a showroom as Wool Corner. Defendant happened to be the brother of plaintiff and is a tenant in the adjacent tenanted shop which is required by the plaintiff for establishment of bigger showroom. Since defendant raised doubt over the ownership of the suit premises of plaintiff therefore, plaintiff incorporated by way of amendment the ground of denial of title under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

(3.) Defendant appeared and filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations contending therein that plaintiff is not in bonafide need of the suit shop since he is carrying on business in sufficient space available to him. Tenancy was also denied. Plaintiff was not receiving the rent inspite of issuing cheques and seeking it through money order. No notice was sent demanding arrears of rent. By way of amendment, appellant/ defendant took the plea that on 05/04/1975 partition was executed through registry amongst the brothers i.e. plaintiff, defendant and other brothers whereby suit shop came in the share of Kapoor Chand (one of their brothers) therefore, plaintiff is not the owner and is not entitled to get vacant possession of the suit shop on the ground of Section 12(1)(c) and (f) of the Act of 1961.