BABULAL GUPTA Vs. ANOOP PADLIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2004 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 139-A/2001, by which a decree for eviction against him has been passed on the grounds under section 12 (1) (e) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent-landlord filed a suit on 27-9-2001 for eviction and for recovery of rent against the appellant-tenant on the grounds under Section 12 (1) (a), (c), (e) and (f) of the Act. In his plaint, he averred that house No. 96 HIG Junior (GH) situated at Scheme No. 54, Indore owned and possessed by him was let out by him to the appellant-defendant in the month of november, 1986, for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/- for residential purpose. He alleged that since last few years the appellant-tenant changed the use of the premises let out to him and instead of using it for residential purpose, had started using it as Nursing Home in the name of Gayatri Nursing Home. He alleged that the appellant-tenant is irregular in paying rent. A Civil Suit No. 113-A/1987 was filed against him for recovery of rent and on his assurance that he will pay the rent regularly, the suit was compromised. Thereafter, again as he failed to pay the rent, a Civil Suit No. 593-A/1995 was filed, which again was compromised on the basis of assurance given by him to pay the rent regularly. He also alleged that this repeated failure of payment of rent by the appellant and dishonour of cheque given towards rent caused nuisance to him. He also stated that presently he is residing with his parents in his father's house situated at 101, Indral ok colony, Indore. He and his family, consisting of his wife and two sons, now wants to reside in his own house in place of his father's house for family circumstances and for this purpose, he bona fide needs the suit house and for such need, he has no other house of his own in the city of Indore. He further stated that in one garage like room of the suit house, he will start business of General and provision store and for this non-residential need, he has no accommodation of his own in the city of Indore. He averred that presently he is doing business of auto parts in the premises let out to him by Vaishnav Trust. He also averred that few days back the appellant-tenant started raising unauthorised construction on the terrace of the suit house which he did not stop even after repeated requests.

(3.) THE appellant-tenant denied the plaint averments and stated that the suit house was let out to him for residential as well as non-residential purposes. The allegation levelled by the plaintiff that he is irregular in making payment of rent was also denied by the appellant. He also denied the bonafide need of the suit house of the respondent-plaintiff for residential as well as for non-residential purposes. According to him, alleged bonafide need of residential purpose is only a pretext to get the accommodation vacated from him. As regards allegation of nuisance, the same was also denied. He also denied the raising of any construction unauthorizedly on the terrace of the suit house.