RAM KISHAN SONI Vs. SURENDRA BAHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard on admission This is tenant's appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 2.7.2009 passed by XIX Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.20-A/2009, confirming the judgment and decree passed by IV Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.246- A/2006 whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed under Section 12( 1 )(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) SHANKAR Lal Bahare, father of the respondent had let out the suit accommodation consisting of a shop bearing house No. 1219, Ganjipura Main Road, Jabalpur to the defendant-appellant by creating tenancy in his favour for non-residential purposes and the defendant is using the same by doing business of medical store in the name and style of Vikash Medical Store. The tenancy of the appellant is monthly and starts from the first day of each calendar month and ends with the last date of the same month The suit House belongs to Smt. Laxmi Bai Bahare and SHANKAR Lal Bahare, mother and father of the respondent. After their death, by virtue of their registered Will dated 15.2.1988, the respondent became owner of the suit property and his name was mutated in the Corporation record and is paying all the taxes. After the death of respondent's father, the respondent recovered the monthly rent from the appellant. The appellant voluntarily paid the rent to the respondent. The respondent passed the rent receipt in favour of appellant as a landlord and owner of the suit shop. The appellant regularly paid the rent as owner to the respondent without any objection. The appellant attorned the respondent by paying the rent.

(3.) IT is not disputed by the appellant-tenant that plaintiff is collecting the monthly rent from him and after the death of Shankar Lai Bahare, it is the plaintiff who is issuing the rent receipt and contended that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the premises. In para 5 he stated that the respondent is a medical practitioner and is running his clinic adjoining to the suit premises and is providing the facility of consultation, ECO and ECG etc. to his patients but denied that the accommodation is insufficient to the respondent. IT is also denied that the respondent has no other reasonable/ suitable non-residential accommodation for his use in the city of Jabalpur. In the written statement, the appellant clearly denied the title of the respondent. The respondent by way of amendment gave the detailed particulars about the execution of registered Will dated 10.2.1988 and also claimed the decree under Section 12(l)(c) of the Act on the ground that denial of the title by the appellant is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the respondent and, therefore, he is entitled to evict the appellant on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant amended the written statement and denied that the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act are attracted. IT is also pleaded that for providing TMT, ECO, ECG and Doppler facility the medical practitioner must possess the degree in Radiology/ Radio Diagnosis. The respondent does not possess the said requisite qualification. He cannot under take to or run the activities like coloured doppler, ECO and TMT facility.