SUSHREE PREM CHAUHAN Vs. VASUDEV RAMTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal is that the respondent had filed a suit for eviction against the appellant, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the appeal has been allowed and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside and the decree for eviction has been passed against the appellant under Section 12(1)(a),(c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking her eviction on the pleadings that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of building situated in Ganesh Colony, Naya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior and its Municipal number is 51/698. The said building was purchased by the plaintiff from its original owner by registered sale deed dated 15-10-1990. Thereafter, on 28-12-1995, a part of the said building was sold by the plaintiff to one Smt. Manju Devi, which is marked with blue lines in the plaint map. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant has purchased the said portion of the house from Smt. Manju Devi. It was further pleaded that the appellant was the tenant of the original owner at the monthly rent of Rs.1000/- and she became the tenant of the plaintiff, after the said property was purchased by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the appellant/defendant has not paid the rent for the last several years, in spite of the fact that it was being constantly demanded by the plaintiff, and further the said portion has been sub-let by the appellant/defendant to one Jitendra Kushwaha, whereas the plaintiff is in need of the suit accommodation for the bonafide requirement for residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff would reconstruct the house for his own residential purposes. A notice was given to the appellant/defendant on 23-9-2009, which was received by her on 26-9-2009, however, in spite of that she has not paid the rent within two months of receipt of the notice. It was further pleaded that since the appellant/defendant has purchased a part of the house, therefore, she was liable to pay Rs.400/- per month by way of rent, however, the same has not been paid. It was further pleaded that the defendant/appellant has also denied the ownership of the plaintiff.