ASHOK KUMAR KAILASHCHAND Vs. RAM CHARAN MOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff-landlord whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court passed a decree for eviction from the tenanted premises. The lower appellate Court set aside the same. The ground on which eviction of the tenant was ordered by the trial Court was under section 12 (1) (a) of the m. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), i. e. , default in payment of arrears of rent within the prescribed period of two months despite service of the notice of demand.

(2.) IT was not disputed before this Court that the defendant-respondent no. 1 was in arrears of rent It was also not in dispute that despite service of notice of demand, he failed to tender or make payment of the amount of arrears of rent. It was also not in dispute that even after the institution of the suit, the defendant-tenant failed to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Act and did not deposit the amount of arrears of rent within one month of the service of the summons of the suit and also did not take care to deposit the amount of rent every month during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) - The only point which could be and was pressed was that since the original landlord who instituted the suit for eviction on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act happened to transfer the suit-house in favour of the present appellant Ashok Kumar who had later on prosecuted the suit in place of the original plaintiff, the ground under section 12 (1) (a) did not exist. The argument was that after the sale of the house, the arrears of rent, even if assigned to the transferee, lost the character of arrears and assumed that of a debt. On this argument it was contended that so far as the transferee-landlord was concerned, the ground under section 12 (1) (a)was not available because the same can he availed of only in respect of arrears of rent and not of debt.