NARAYAN SINGH Vs. ARJUN DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 6th July, 1983 passed by Shri K. S. Shrivastava, District Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal No. 38-A of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree of eviction of the respondent/tenant from the suit house dated 6-9-1982 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Nagod in Civil Suit No. 20-A/77.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the appellant is the landlord and owner of the suit house in occupation of the respondent as tenant thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- only. The appellant instituted the suit for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he was in arrears of rent, which he has not paid in spite of notice; the suit house was required bona fide for the business requirement of his son Rajendra Singh and also on the ground that the respondent has carried alterations in the suit house without his permission. The respondent resisted the suit and submitted that he has paid the rent upto May, 1977, but the appellant has not given the receipt. He also submitted that there was no need of Rajendra Singh, who was a student of law. He also denied other allegations. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that the respondent has not paid rent in accordance with section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has, therefore, rendered himself liable to eviction under section 12 (1) (a) thereof. The learned Judge, however, found no justification for bona fide requirement of the suit house for business of Rajendra Singh. In the opinion of the trial Court, there was neither any need of said Rajendra Singh nor the same was bona fide. Since the Court found ground under section 12 (1) (a) existing, a decree for the eviction was passed by the learned trial Judge. In the appeal filed by the respondent, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that the respondent had raised a dispute within the meaning of section 13 (2) of the Act, which has not been decided by the learned trial Judge. According to him, as long as the said dispute was not decided, operation of section 13 (1) of the Act had remained arrested. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge found no justification for passing a decree under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. It appears that the appellant sought to support the impugned decree on the ground of bona fide need covered under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act and hence this matter was also considered by the learned District Judge. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Distict Judge found four circumstances which, according to him, were sufficient to negative the claim of the appellant, namely, (i) the notice terminating tenancy did not mention bona fide requirment of Rajendra Singh; (ii) change in the nature of business. Earlier the need was for opening a cycle repairing shop, which was subsequently changed to a painting shop; (iii) Rajendra Singh being a law student, and (iv) a shop vacated by Chetan was available for satisfying the need, if the need was real. On these objective facts, the Court held that the requirements of section 12 (1) (e) of the Act were not satisfied. In accordance with the aforesaid decision, the decree of eviction was set aside and the suit dismissed.

(3.) THIS Court, while admitting this appeal for final hearing on 27-10-1983, framed the following substantial question of law for its consideration: