SURAJBHAN Vs. RAMNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant ­ defendant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2007, passed by the 17th Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Indore (M.P.) in Civil First Appeal No.10/2006, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005, passed by the 9 th Civil Judge Class II, Indore in COS. No.131-A/04, dismissing the suit has been reversed and decreed under Section 12(1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961') has been granted.

(2.) The facts of the case in short for disposal of this appeal are as under :-

(3.) That the plaintiff Ramnarayan (now dead represented through legal heirs) being a owner of the House No.73, Bada- Sarafa, Indore comprising four shops on the ground floor ( for the sake of convenience herein after referred as 'suit shops'), filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mense profit against the defendant ­ Surajbhan (now dead represented through legal heirs). As per averment made in the plaint, the defendant is a tenant in the suit shop and running the business of sale of sweets. The tenancy is a monthly . There is an arrears of rent from 1.5.1980. The plaintiff served a notice dt.17.09.1980 to the defendant and despite receipt of the notice, the defendant did not pay the rent within time. The defendant without permission of the plaintiff has sublet the suit shops to his brother Sohanlal and handed over the possession to him and he himself has started the business in shop No.69, Bada Sarafa, Indore. According to the plaintiff the suit shops were given on rent for show-room and sale of sweets purpose, but without his permission the defendant has started the cooking and restaurant. He has also caused nuisance by installing furnace and coal in front of the shop. The behaviour of the defendant is also not pleasant towards neigbours. Whenever the plaintiff goes there for a demand of rent, he used to misbehave with him along with his employees. The plaintiff is in need of the suit shop for starting his own business of sale of jewellery of gold and silver because he is not having alternate suitable accommodation in the Indore city. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendant in the shop No.4 has dug the big holes in the wall and constructed the almirah and substantially caused the damaged to the suit property. He has also encroached over the extra area. He has also removed the partitioned walls between three shops and converted them into one shop. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff does not want to continue with the defendant in the relationship of landlord- tenant. By way of registered notice dt.17.9.1980, he has terminated the tenancy. Despite receipt of notice he defendant has neither submitted a reply nor deposited the arrears of rent.