IION KARAN Vs. SMT. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff arising out of a suit for eviction. Ejectment was sought by the plaintiff inter alia on grounds specified under Sections 12(1)(c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that the defendant, who was his tenant, had created a nuisance by frequently quarreling with other tenants and that the suit accommodation was required by the plaintiff for providing accommodation to his two sons for their studies. It was further averted that the plaintiff has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in Ujjain for the purpose. The suit was resisted by the defendant but the trial Court found that it was established from the evidence on record that the defendant had created a nuisance and that the suit accommodation was bonafide required by the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court held that merely causing, inconvenience did not amount to creating a nuisance and no ground for ejectment under Section 12(I)(c) of the Act was, therefore, made out by the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court further held that as the suit accommodation was required by the plaintiff's for providing accommodation to his sons to enable them to study, the plaintiff for providing requirement could not he held to be one for residential purpose. The lower appellate Court, therefore, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment under Section 12(I)(e) of the Act. The lower appellate Court, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this second appeal.

(3.) Having heard Shri B.P. Jhanjaria, learned counsel for the appellant, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The main ground given by the lower appellate Court for holding that a case for ejectment under Section 12(I)(e) of the Act is not made out by the plaintiff, is that the suit accommodation which is residential is not required by the plaintiff for occupation as a residence. Now using accommodation for the purpose of studying cannot be constructed to mean that the accommodation is required for non-residential purpose. The finding given by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff's requirement of the suit accommodation is not for residential purpose is, therefore, perverse. The lower appellate Court has not found that the requirement of the plaintiff of the suit accommodation for that purpose. It must, therefore, he held that the lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act.