SUBHASH CHAND AND ANR. Vs. GYANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.3.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 58 -A/91 by Additional District Judge, Sagar, directing that the Appellants/Defendants shall be evicted from the suit -premises, by reversing he judgment and decree dated 30.9.1992 in Civil Suit No. 58 -A/1991 by Civil Judge, Class -II, Bina, District Sagar. The Plaintiff/Respondent is admittedly owner and landlord of suit -premises bearing House No. 135, Masjid Ward, Bajriya, Bina, District Sagar. The Appellants/Defendants are tenants in the first floor of the said house. The tenanted premises is shown in the map attached to the plaint. It is also not in dispute that the Plaintiff/Respondent is presently residing in a house at Bina -ltawa situated in Kanoongo Ward. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a suit for eviction of the Defendants/ Appellants Under Section 12 (1) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). It was averred that the Plaintiff/Respondent is in occupation of a protion of the house admeasuring 8'x 12'. The said accommodation is insufficient for the residence of the Plaintiff alongwith his family. His son has done his Post Graduation in medicine and is to be married. The other two sons of the Plaintiff have also to be married. The ground -floor of the house in which the suit -premises is located shall be untilised for business purpose, while the suit -premises of the first -floor would be utilised by the family for residence. The Defendants/Appellants resisted the suit. According to them, the house presently in occupation of the Plaintiff/Respondent is three -storeyed and there is sufficient accommodation in his possession for his residence. The Plaintiff has filed the suit mala fide in order to get higher rent for the suit -accommodation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff does not bona fide required the suit -accommodation. However, the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff/Respondent was successful and the learned lower appellate Court, by the impugned -judgment, held that the accommodation presently in occupation of the Plaintiff/Respondent for his residence is inadequate and that the suit -accommodation is required bona fide by him for the residence of himself and his family members. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent has urged that the evidence and material on record amply establish that the present accommodation in occupation of the Plaintiff is most inadequate for his residential needs. He cannot be forced to live in insufficient accommodation and that he has a right to live comfortably in his own house, if he so chooses. The Defendants have not shown that the Plaintiff/landlord wanted to enhance rent of the suit -premises so as to negative his claim that he required the suit -accommodation 'bona fide' for his residence. It has also been submitted that the suit -premises does not consist of the ground -floor of the suit -house and the suit -premises consists of part of first floor of the house. The ground -floor was proposed to be utilised by the Plaintiff for business of the familly including the dispensary of the son of the Plaintiff/Respondent, while the first -floor would be utilised for the residence of the family. It has also been urged that the finding or fact as above cannot be disturbed in second appeal. It has, therefore, been urged that the impugned -judgment and decree granted in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent directing eviction of the Defendants from the suit -premises is fully justified.

(3.) THE Plaintiff Gyanchand Badkul (P.W.1) has stated that he is residing with his family in a house situated in the locality known as Bina -ltawa. It was their ancestral house. A partition has been effected herein and a portion of it has fallen in his share. It may be noted that the Plaintiff/Appellant in his pleadings, para -18(c), has alleged that the house in which he is presently residing was constructed on an area 8'x12' and that it is three -storeyed. It has further been pleaded that the accommodation presently in occupation of the Plaintiff in the said houlse being insufficient, he purchased the suit -house. Therefore, the said house presently in occupation of the Plaintiff is obviously a small one. It may further be. noted that portion of the said house presently in occupation of Plaintiff has fallen in the share of other members of the family, as has been stated by Plaintiff Gyanchand Badkul (P.W.1). Therefore, it is obvious that he has a very small portion for himself and his family in the said house. The Plaintiff has stated that he wants to reside in the first -floor of the house in which the suit -premises is situated. He also states that his family would be carrying on business on the ground -floor. The ground -floor of the house is now being used by the elder son of the Plaintiff for carrying on his dispensary as has been stated by Plaintiff Gyanchand (P.W.1).