Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
S.C. SHARMA, J.
Rajesh - Appellant
Vs.
Rajkunwar - Respondent
S.A. No. 470 of 2014
Decided On : 05-08-2015
M.P. Accommodation Control Act - Eviction - Section 12(1)(f), 12(1)(h) - [12(1)(f), 12(1)(h)] - The court affirmed the eviction decree based on the grounds under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The respondents proved their bona fide requirement for construction of Yatri Niwas and for starting a business of lodging. The court held that a suit on both grounds is maintainable and can be decreed. The appellant's grounds for amendment and alternative accommodation were rejected as the respondents did not own or possess any alternative accommodation. The court also found that the appellant was given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the Second Appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for eviction of the tenants from the suit premises on the grounds under section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The suit was decreed based on the grounds under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) as the respondents proved their bona fide requirement for construction of Yatri Niwas and for starting a business of lodging.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' suit for eviction was maintainable and decreed based on the grounds under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the Act. The appellant's grounds for amendment and alternative accommodation were rejected, and it was concluded that the appellant was given proper opportunity to adduce evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the suit for eviction under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the Act, the appellant's grounds for amendment and alternative accommodation, and the appellant's opportunity to adduce evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit on both grounds under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) is maintainable and can be decreed. The court also found that the appellant's grounds for amendment and alternative accommodation were not valid, and the appellant was given proper opportunity to adduce evidence.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
S.C. Sharma, J.
Parties as before this Court.
The present second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26-9-2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 38/2012 by 15th Additional District Judge, Indore, by which, the judgment delivered by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore has been affirmed.
2. The respondents being owners and landlords on 14-12-2006 have filed a suit for eviction of the tenants/respondents from the suit premises on the grounds under section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b), 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
3. In the said suit it was not in dispute that the respondents are the owners and landlords of the suit premises and the appellant is the tenant therein for nonresidential purpose @ Rs. 1600/- per month.
4. Before filing the suit a legal notice (Ex-P/3) terminating the tenancy was issued.
5. The respondents filed the suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, bona fide requirement and bona fide requirement for construction. The grounds of arrears of rent and sub-letting are not relevant for the purposes of this appeal as the trial Court has negated the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act, though the ground under section 12(1)(b) was found proved by the trial Court but has been negated by the first Appellate Court. The two Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit on the ground under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the Act.
6. The respondents pleaded that the suit accommodation is bonafidely required by them for construction of Yatri Niwas and for this purpose they have prepared plans and are having requisite funds. It was further pleaded that after construction, they shall start business of lodging and for this purpose the respondent do not own or possess any other accommodation. It was further pleaded that near the suit accommodation there is marriage garden wherein marriage and other functions are organised and rooms are required, hence there is good scope of boarding and lodging business and the suit accommodation is suitable for this purpose.
7. To prove their case, the respondents have examined two witnesses namely Prakash Chand (PW/1) and Jugalkishore Sharma (PW/2). A long and exhaustive cross examination was done upon the said witnesses and nothing could be brought on record to demolish the grounds of construction and bona fide need of the respondent. The appellant/defendant did not adduce any evidence in spite of grant of several opportunities to him. Thus there is no evidence in rebuttal.
8. The learned trial Court after appreciating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record has held the suit accommodation is bonafidely required by the respondent for reconstruction and for starting their business of lodging and for this the respondent have no other alternative accommodation of their own in the city. The trial Court has also found proved that the appellant is residing at Harda and the suit accommodation has been illegally sub-letted to Sundarlal Sahu and Vinod Sahu.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree the appellant filed the first appeal. The Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record has affirmed the findings of the trial Court so far as the grounds under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) are concerned, however the finding with regard to sub-letting is concerned, the finding are reversed. Now this second appeal has been filed by the Tenant/appellant.
10. In this appeal the appellant has mainly raised ground that a suit for bona fide requirement under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(h) of the Act was not maintainable nor could have decreed. In the present case, it is clear that the respondents have pleaded and proved that they shall be starting their business of lodging in the suit accommodation after making re-construction. The respondents have relied upon the judgments reported in 2001 (1) MPWN 56, Bhaiyalal v. Basantibai, 2006 (4) MPLJ 460, Ghasiram v. Sharifa Bai and Ors., (2009)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
