SITAB CHAND Vs. DEGDULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant-tenant against whom a decree of ejectment has been passed by the Courts below under Sec. 12(1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant has converted the purpose for which the house was so taken on rent initially, which has resulted into inconsistency with the purpose for which the appellant was admitted to the tenancy, vide Ex. P. I which is admittedly a rent note executed by the appellant in favour of respondent/plaintiff, wherein it has been categorically stated that the suit house has been taken on rent for non- residential purpose.

(2.) The following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration of this court, namely:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was no conversion as such since the appellant took the said premises on rent in the year 1953 and had not only opened a shop, but also occupied the premises for his residential purpose, with the knowledge of the respondent/landlord. It is no doubt true that Ex. P. 1 which is admittedly a rent note executed in the year 1953 specifies that the suit accommodation has been taken for non- residential purposes. Under the circumstances, even under this rent note, the appellant could not have used the suit premises for residential purposes. The learned counsel contended that at the time when the premises were taken on rent by the appellant, Harsued was having a Gram Panchayat and at any rate the conversion according to the plaintiff took in the year 1958. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the learned counsel failed to point out from the plaint that the respondent/ plaintiff had pleaded conversion by the appellant/defendant in the year 1958. In the fact it may be stated that the suit was filed on 6-5-1977 when admittendly, the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 had come into operation. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellant/defendant had converted the purpose for which the accommodation was let out to him initially and, therefore, granted a decree under Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. Whether or not the conversion has taken place, a finding of fact and the perusal of record shows that the said finding was recorded by the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence on record. In the opinion of this court, therefore, no interference is called for, the reversing that finding, particularly when the learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the findings so recorded by the courts below are based on either mis-reading of the evidence or the Courts below omitted to read any part of the evidence on record.