The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, specifically Section 12(6), to determine the payment required for recovery of possession and uphold the bonafide requirement for business purposes.

V.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Third Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, vide judgment and decree dated 27-7-1994 passed in Civil Suit No 87-A/94 disallowed the recovery of possession of ground floor of suit house, damages, means profit and profit of arrears of rent.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, as unfolded before the Lower Court, is that plaintiff is the owner of House No. 46, Sanichari Bazar, Durg (hereinafter referred to as "the suit house"), respondent hired the suit house on rent on 11-4-1979. The ground floor was let out for Banking business and a portion of first floor was let out for residence of Bank Manager. Initially the rent was Rs. 1,020/- per month and the same was enhanced from March, 1982 at a rate of Rs. 1,275/-. Appellant made a request to the Bank for enhancement of rent and the Bank vide letter dated 3-9-1985 proposed to pay rent at a rate of Rs. 3,357 : 50 on additional conditions. Appellant accepted the proposal with some modification, but respondent did not pay the enhanced rent and still continued paying rent at a rate of Rs. 1,275/-. Respondent unauthorisedly closed the stairs of first floor and even did not use the first floor for residential purpose; as a result of which appellant was deprived from getting his building repaired which caused damages to the slab. Appellant has five sons except one, who is in service, rest of the sons are unemployed. His sons Vijendra, Chandra Shekhar and Santosh are inclined to start business of electrical works and remaining sons are willing to start business of hardware and for their business the appellant require the ground floor bonafide and the first floor for their residential purpose, on the ground that he has no other suitable accommodation in the city for business and residential purpose of his sons available in his possession. With the aforesaid averment a suit for eviction, arrears of rent, compensation and means profit was filed by the appellant.

3. Respondent did not dispute that he has taken the ground floor and a portion of first floor on rent on 9-3-1977 with appellant at a rate of Rs. 1,020/-per month and the rent was enhanced in March, 1982 by Rs. 1,275/-. Respondent on 3-9-1985 proposed to enhance rent for ground floor at a rate of Rs. 1.25 per st. ft. on certain additional conditions, and the same was accepted by appellant vide his letter dated 20-9-1985 with some modification. Respondent contested the Claim averring that there was no agreement to pay rent of stairs, verandah and toilet. The Bank never encroached upon any portion of the building. Appellant did not get the rent note renewed. The first floor let out to respondent was not suitable for residence of Manager, therefore, the portion let out to the Bank was used for keeping some un-used materials. Appellant did not require the suit accommodation bonafide.

4. Both the parties in order to establish their case adduced oral and documentary evidence and the Lower Court after adjudicating the dispute held that appellant is entitled for recovery of possession of first floor, difference of arrears of rent for three years, i.e., Rs. 74,970/- up to 14-10-1992 and thereafter rent at a rate of Rs. 3,357 : 50 per month. Accordingly, the suit was partly allowed and decreed vide impugned judgment and decree.

5. Learned Counsel for both the parties are heard, record of Lower Court perused.

6. Bhikamlal Devangan (P.W. 1), who is appellant, in his statement deposed that in the first floor there are four blocks and all the blocks were lying vacant even the Bank Manager did not reside in any of the block. The door leading to first floor was kept locked by the respondent. When ground floor is being used for banking purposes by a Nationalized Bank, it is quite natural that if no one is living in the first floor, for the safety of the Bank un-wanted openings should be kept closed. There is no reliable evidence to show that appellant ever attempted to get the key for occupying the first floor. Ash