IKRAR MOHAMMAD Vs. ISUB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal involves a crucial question that whether the lower appellate court contrary to the finding of the Trial Court about absence of bona fide with regard to requirement under Section 12(1 )(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act can grant a decree for eviction on its own notions beyond the pleadings as well as case projected in evidence. 1. This appeal is by the tenant against judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court directing thereby eviction of the defendant/appellant from the suit shop. It has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent with allegations that the defendant is tenant in the shop owned by the plaintiff. He was inducted into tenancy @ 250/- p.m., vide rent note dated 17/1/96. Plaintiff is a poor labourer performing his work with the aid of hand-cart. He, bona fide, needs the suit shop to start his grocery business. Suit shop is in dilapidated condition. Its walls are quite weak and have developed cracks, which may fall down at any moment. It cannot be repaired without eviction. Defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 17/1/96. A demand notice was issued on 31/7/2000, which was served upon him. Despite notice, defendant did not pay the rent nor did he vacate the suit shop, hence the suit.

(3.) Defendant/appellant submitted his written statement refuting thereby the claim of the plaintiff. It has been stated that the plaintiff suppressed the adjacent property belonging to him. It is further averred that the defendant did not execute the alleged rent-note dated 17/1/96. On the contrary, suit shop was obtained on rent w.e.f. 10/4/92 @ 200/- per month as rent and Rs.50/- per month as electricity charges. Defendant is not in arrears of rent, rather, he has been paying the rent timely . The alleged rent note dated 17/1/96 is a forged document. As regards alleged need, It is averred that the plaintiff has two more shops. Need of the plaintiff has accordingly been denied by the defendant. In special plea, defendant averred that the plaintiff disconnected the electricity of the suit shop on 21/3/01. On 24/3/01, new electric meter was installed with the consent of the plaintiff. Money order issued to the plaintiff of rent @ 250 p.m. was not accepted. Defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.2500/- in the court as rent w.e.f. April, 01 to January,02. Prior to April, 01, there was no balance towards rent. On account of disconnection of electricity, rate of rent is liable to be fixed.