VITHALRAO Vs. GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlord has come up in this Second Appeal against an order dt. 21-1-88. passed by the District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No.1-A/78, under S.18(3) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act,1961.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The appellant filed a suit in the year 1975 for ejectment in respect of the suit premises situated at house No. 271, Pipli Bazar, Dhar on the ground of S.12(1)(h) and on other grounds. The suit was decreed under S.12(1)(h) of the Act, as the accommodation was required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding or making substantial additions or alterations and in the opinion of the decreeing Court, such rebuilding or additions or alterations could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacant. Against this, the tenant-respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred, wherein the decree of the Courts below was confirmed by the High Court with a direction to the tenant to give vacant possession on or before 30-6-85 and the landlord was to commence reconstruction on or before 30-6/ 85 and after completion of the same to redeliver the possession, within one month from the date of the completion of the construction to the tenant. The tenant, in compliance of the judgment and decree of the High Court in Second Appeal, handed over the possession to the landlord, who was employed in the Education Department as teacher and then at that time, retired from his services. But on his retirement, the landlord in the High Court did not claim the eviction u/s.12(1)(e) of the Act, i.e. bona fide requirement of the premises for residence by virtue of the subsequent events. After the delivery of the possession, instead of commencing the work, the landlord shifted from Indore to Dhar and occupied the premises and started living therein. The landlord in view of the decree passed under S.12(1)(h) of the Act failed to commence the work of reconstruction.

(3.) When the landlord did not commence the work for sufficiently long time, the tenant respondent, filed an application under S.18(3) of the Act on 30-04-86 for restoration and/or redelivery of the possession of the suit premises. The landlord-appellant contested the application mainly on two grounds that when originally the suit was filed in the year 1975 for reconstruction, the cost of construction estimated was only Rs. 5,000/- but as the possession was delivered by the tenant in the year 1985 after the decree of the High Court in Second Appeal, the cost of construction has gone too high the appellant-landlord, a poor teacher, hence, could not afford to reconstruct the premises because of financial stringency. The other reason assigned was that he spent most of the amount in the treatment of his disabled daughter. As after the retirement, the appellant had to vacate the premises at Indore and had to come to his permanent abode at Dhar, he occupied the premises. According to the appellant-landlord, the cause assigned for not commencing the work of repairs is bona fide and sufficient which warrants not to order the delivery of possession to the tenant but in default, compensation only would be sufficient. On the basis of the application, replies and on the facts admitted by the landlord himself, the trial Court passed an order against the landlord, directing the landlord to deliver the possession of the suit accommodation to the tenant. Against this order dt. 16-04-1987 in Misc. Civil Case No. 10/86, passed by Shri Yakub Ali, Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhar, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Dhar. In the appeal, besides the grounds raised in the reply by the landlord, other submission was made that the trial Court passed the order of redelivery of possession without holding any enquiry and further the tenant has already acquired vacant possession of the suit accommodation suitable for his residence in the town of Dhar, which has been purchased by him in the name of his son, as such on this ground also the application u/s.18(3) be dismissed.