CHHAGANLAL Vs. PARVATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed by the defendants, is directed against the judgment and decree of the IV th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 8th March 1968, affirming the judgment and decree of the IInd Civil judge (Class I), Jabalpur, dated 1st September 1967, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for ejectment under section 12 (l) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961, together with arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of the accommodation in suit.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, shortly stated, are these. The plaintiff Smt. Parvati Bai had purchased the ground floor of House No. 461, uprainganj, Jabalpur, by a registered sale deed dated 5th December 1964 (Ex. P.- l) from one Smt. Shivkurnari Bai. The defendants are tenants in the portion on the ground floor shown in red in the plaint-map on a rent of Rs. 12 /- per month, since before the purchase of that house by the plaintiff; their tenancy commences on the first day of each English calendar month, and the tenancy was, on these very terms, attorned to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been occupying the first floor of the house which belongs to her daughters. The suit premises had been let out to the defendants for residential purposes and are being used by them for that purpose. The plaintiff sought their eviction under section 12 (1) (e) and (g) of the Act, on the grounds that (i) she required the premises for the bona fide residence of herself and the other members of her family residing with her; and (ii) the demised portion required essential repairs which could not be carried out without the defendants vacating the premises. She alleged that her residential requirement of the suit premises was a felt need because she was a chronic heart patient and was also a patient of advanced Tuberculosis and was, as such, unable to climb up the stairs to reach the first floor belonging to her daughters with whom she was presently residing, and that she had been advised complete rest and forbidden climbing of steps by her doctors. In other words, the plaintiff pleaded that her condition of health made it absolutely necessary that she resides on the ground floor and, therefore, her requirement was a bona fide need within the meaning of section 12 (1) (e) ibid.

(3.) APART from taking various other pleas in denial of the claim with which we are not concerned in this appeal, the defendants mainly resisted the plaintiff's claim for eviction under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act, by denying that she was a patient of heart ailment or was suffering from Tuberculosis, much less of an advanced nature. It was also specifically denied by them that she was either unable to move about or that she had been advised complete rest by her doctors or was unable to climb up and down the stairs. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had been residing in the first floor of the house for the last 7 /8 years and that her claim was utterly false.