JAVED AHMAD Vs. ABDUL ALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 22.12.1995 in Civil Appeal No. 103A/1995 by District Judge, Raipur dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1993 in Civil Suit No. 29A/1990 by II Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur decreeing the suit of the respondent -plaintiff for eviction of the defendant -appellant.

(2.) THE relevant facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent, mesne -profits, etc. on the averment that the appellant -defendant was his tenant in the suit -premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. The tenancy of the defendant -appellant commenced from the 1st of each calendar month and ended with he calendar month. The suit -premises was let out to the appellant -defendant upto the period of 31 st December, 1986 after which the defendant -appellant had undertaken to vacate the same. However, defendant -appellant did not vacate the suit -premises. It was also averred that as per the agreement between the parties, the suit -accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiff -respondent for the business of his wife and son and that they have no other suitable alterriative accommodation of their own for the purpose. There was an agreement between the parties that two months' notice would be given for vacating the suit -premises. Accordingly, a notice dated 13.6.1990 was sent by the plaintiff -respondent to the appellant through his counsel. However, since the appellant -defendant did not vacate the suit -premises even after the period of two months of the notice, the suit for his eviction, arrears of rent, etc. was filed.

(3.) THE learned trial Court held that the respondent -plaintiff required the suit -premises bona fide for starting his business and accordingly decreed his suit for eviction and arrears of rent, etc. against the defendant -appellant. The learned lower appellate Court held that the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not applicable to the area where the suit -premises is situate and, therefore, no ground u/s 12 of that Act was required to be proved by the landlord -plaintiff and need no decision. It was further held by the learned lower appellate Court that notice (Ex. P -2) dated 13.6.1990 was given for a clear period of two months and, therefore, there was due compliance of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy of the defendant -appellant was duly terminated. Accordingly, the appeal was found to have without any meric and was dismissed.