S. MITRA Vs. P.V. SHRINIVASAIYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's appeal against his eviction from the suit house.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-Respondent P. V. Shrinivasaiyya is the landlord and owner of the suit house bearing No. HIG 501, Sector E-7, Shahpura, Bhopal. The appellant is inducted into the said premises as a tenant by its previous owner Dr. Neera Bhargava. The said house is transferred to the respondent/landlord by the M.P. Housing Board. As such the respondent became the owner and landlord of the suit house. Previous owner Dr. Neera Bhargava accordingly informed the appellant by her letter dated 1-3-1980 that she has transferred the house in question to the respondent and from 1st March, 1980 the appellant should pay rent to the respondent. Thus the appellant became a tenant of the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 with effect from 1-3-1980.

(3.) The appellant issue a cheque in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs. 3,200.00 towards rent for the period from 1-3-1980 to 30-6.1980 i e., for four months, but the said cheque returned dishonoured from the Bank. On 24-11-1980, the respondent sent a notice to the appellant demanding arrears of rent. The said notice returned unserved with an endorsement by the postman that the notice refused to take delivery. Therefore, a second notice was sent on 30-3-1981 demanding arrears of rent and also terminating the tenancy, which too returned unserved with postman's endorsement that the notice was not available at the residence and despite intimation did not turn up to take delivery. According to this second notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 30-6-1981. But the suit house was not vacated by the appellant, therefore, the suit was filed, claiming eviction of the appellant under Sec. 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was averred that the appellant was in arrears of rent since 1-3-1980 to 30-6-1981 @ Rs. 800.00 per month i.e., Total Rs. 12.800.00 and the house in question was required bonafide by the respondent's family members for residential purposes.