JAGDISHPRASAD VISHVAKARMA Vs. DROPATIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "no light", wrote Milton in Paradise Lost "but rather darkness visible". But Courts of justice, determined to secure harmony and spurn antinomy, search "light" in lexicon of law to be able to say "no darkness, but only light visible". In this epicerastic exercise, Courts have to remember that law has to enchisel "flaw" and ensure "flow" in doctrinal direction. The inbred question is whether First Appellate Court has done the right thing?

(2.) THE landlord has filed this second appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1994, rendered by III Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 4-A/93, thereby dislodging and demolishing the judgment and decree of eviction, passed Under Section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), from the tenanted accommodation comprised of House No. 2, Murai Mohilla, Street No. 3, Sanyogitaganj, Indore, occupied by the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 18. 00 by VIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore, in C. O. S. No. 357-A/85 on 20-9-1990 and ordering the dismissal of the suit to the extent of relief of eviction.

(3.) FACTS lie in a narrow compass. The original tenant occupied the aforesaid accommodation as tenant. The appellant has a large family of 27 members. He and his wife suffered from ailments. His brother Mahesh Kumar is forced to live in tenanted accommodation. In the face of acute insufficiency of the accommodation, the appellant filed the civil suit for eviction and recovery of rent from 1-1-1982 and mesne profits thereafter. The defendant filed the written-statement of defence and offered his contest. The trial Court framed the issues. The material issue is Issue No.