RADHESHYAM Vs. SARDAR PREETAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are hereby decided by a common judgment.

(2.) THE matters are revolving around the same property situated in Mahesh Nagar, Indore bearing No. 5/43 consisting of three rooms and a verandah on ground floor. The landlord Radheshyam brought a suit against respondent Sardar Preetam Singh which was numbered as 96-A/80. Landlord Radheshyam prayed for decree of eviction against respondent in context with provisions of Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (b), 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (i) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience ). The trial Court dismissed the suit of landlord Radheshyam so far as his claim based on 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (i) of the Act. Landlord had abandoned his claim for eviction in context with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit of the landlord Radheshyam in context with provisions of Section 12 (1) (e ). Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant Sardar Preetam Singh filed an appeal in the District Court which was decided by Vth Addl. District Judge, Indore on 23-4-92 by which he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that is 6th Civil Judge, Cl. II, Indore as well as dismissed the cross objections which were filed by the landlord in respect of challenge to the findings recorded by the trial Court in context with his claim for eviction in view of Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (e), 12 (1) (i) of the Act.

(3.) TRIAL Court dismissed the contention of the landlord in respect of his claim in respect of provisions of Section 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (e), 12 (1) (i) of the Act by holding that the defendant did not construct the house of his own in the area near Khatiwala Tank, Indore. The 1st Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court on above mentioned provisions of the Act by concurrent opinion. In addition to that it set aside the finding recorded in favour of the landlord by the trial Court in respect of his bonafide need so far as suit house is concerned. The trial Court held that the landlord was residing in rented house and during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the landlord by entering into a compromise, vacated said premise and filed the suit for evicting the defendant Sardar Preetam Singh. The trial Court further held that being the owner of the suit house, the landlord was entitled to get vacant possession of the suit house as he required it for his residence, bonafide. That resulted in granting the decree on that count in favour of the landlord. The 1st Appellate Court set aside the finding recorded by the trial Court on the count of which the suit of the landlord-plaintiff was decreed.