SUNIL KULKURNI Vs. JAGDISHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.01.06 passed by XIII Additional District Judge,Indore in Civil Suit No.28A/04 whereby the suit filed by the respondent under section 12(l)(a) and(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter called as "the Act") was decreed and the appellant was directed to vacate the suit accommodation and also to pay arrears of rent, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant alleging that the appellant is in occupation of the accommodation bearing house No.22/1 situated at Kachhi Mohala,Indore. It was alleged in the plaint that Ambalal,father of respondent, was the owner of the accommodation, who has died in November, 1990. It was alleged that Ambalal during his life time executed a gift deed dated 31/12/1963, whereby the suit-property was gifted by Ambalal to the respondent. It was further alleged that appellant is the tenant in the suit-accommodation at the rate of 1500/- per month. Appellant is irregular in paying the rent and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/11/93 which has not been paid in spite of demand. It was also alleged that respondent requires the suit-accommodation for running Computer Classes bonafidly and for this purpose, respondent is having no other alternative accommodation of his own. It was alleged that since the rent was not paid in spite of demand notice dated 12/06/03, which was duly served on the appellant, therefore, respondents entitled for a decree of eviction under Section 12(l)(a) & (f)of the Act.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement. It was alleged in the written statement that the appellant was inducted in the suit premises by Ambalal,father of the respondent, as tenant @ Rs.200/- per month in the year 1980. It was also alleged that after his death brother of the respondent was receiving the rent from the appellant and the rent has already been paid up to 30/06/2004. It was denied that appellant was in arrears of rent and the need of the respondent is bonafide. It was prayed that the suit filed by the respondent be dismissed.