BARJIBAI WD/O KAWARLAL Vs. HARILAL MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of affirmance.

(2.) ORIGINAL plaintiff Kawarlal (since dead) filed the suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground enumerated under Sections 12 (l) (a), 12 (1 ) (c), 12 (l) ( (k) and 12 (l) (m) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Durg by judgment and decree dated 2-12-1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 96-A of 1988 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg by judgment and decree dated 21-12-1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4-A of 1989 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal and by order dated 12-7-1991 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :" whether on facts found, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction under Section 12 ( l) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?"

(3.) FACTS necessary for the decision of the aforesaid substantial question of law as pleaded by the parties are as under :according to the plaintiff, defendants have constructed a Pucca Chabuiara, tin shed and oven (Bhatti) in the year 1974 for preparation of Halwai goods over the Nali of the Municipal Corporation in front of the plaintiff's house. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that after enquiry by the Nazul Officer, defendants were imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- and the oven was removed in the year 1976. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that thereafter defendants have again reconstructed Chabutara and the oven and again Nazul Officer imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and the revision filed by the defendants against the said order has also been dismissed. Another act of nuisance according to the plaintiff is that the defendants tried to open window which is situated between the suit accommodation and the plaintiff's adjoining house which led to falling of the brick and the same has caused injury to the plaintiff's servant. According to the plaintiff this act of the defendants has infringed upon the privacy of the plaintiff. Another act of nuisance according to the plaintiff is that because of smoke of the oven and smell at the time of the preparation of goods have affected the plaintiff's son who is a lawyer having office adjoining to the suit accommodation. Plaintiff's further stand is that customers coming to the hotel of the defendants parks their cycles in front of the office of the plaintiff's advocate son and used leaf plates are also thrown in front of his office, which cause nuisance.