JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal filed under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code calling in question the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge to the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.485-A/2011 (O. N. Thassu (Dead) through LRS & Ors. v. Smt. Malti Osle), wherein the suit filed by one O.N. Thassu for eviction of appellant from the suit property suit property situated at E3/4C, Arera Colony Bhopal along with ground floor and rooms, which have been described in the plaint and also marked in the map.

2. The case of the original plaintiff O.N. Thassu was that the appellant/defendant be evicted from the suit premises and balance amount of rent amounting to Rs.86,124/- as well as rent from 19/09/2011 till eviction of the defendant/appellant at the rate of Rs. 3,953/- per month be granted with rate of interest @ 18%.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the suit house is owned by one Smt. Uma Devi Thassu, who was wife of Shyamlal Thassu, who died and thereafter, her legal representatives became owner of the suit property and O.N. Thassu original plaintiff was one of legal representative of Smt. Umadevi Thassu. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises is being rented out to the husband of appellant late Shri R.P. Osle and at the time of filing of the suit, rent of the suit premises was Rs.3,953/- per month and as per the terms and conditions of the rent deed, the rent was to be enhanced in every two years @ 10%. The defendant/appellant has not paid the rent amount since November, 2009, therefore, total amount of Rs.86,124/- is to be recovered. It is further pleaded that the suit premises is required bona-fidely for the brothers namely Satish Kumar Thassu, who is resided at Delhi and wants to shift at Bhopal. Similarly, another brother D.K. Thassu, , who is retired and staying at Ambah, District Morena, also wants to live at Bhopal.

4. The appellant / defendant has filed their counter by submitting that the original plaintiff Shri O.N. Thassu issued a legal notice on 13.4.2011 to appellant/defendant to vacate the suit premises and make payment of the due rent, however, the same has not been done. In her written statement, besides denying all the facts and grounds raised by the plaintiff and she has further contended that the suit premises is not required bona fidely and the same has also not sustainable as Satish Kumar Thassu is settled at Morena, therefore, he would not come up and stay at Bhopal. It has further contended that she has always deposited the rent amount on time but due to sudden death of her son in road accident, she could not deposit the rent for some time. However, later on, she has deposited the rent. The appellant/defendant has specifically pleaded that the suit property was originally owned by Smt. Uma Devi Thassu and after her death, suit is being filed by late Shri O.N. Thassu alone, therefore, the suit is not maintainable because he is not the absolute owner of the suit property.

5. Learned trial Court has framed as many as 11 issues, the parties have adduced their evidence and exhibited the documents. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence elaborately, was pleased to allow the suit and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by holding that the plaintiffs/respondents have made out a case under sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1) (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of appellant/defendant from the suit premises. The trial Court has further held that the appellant/defendant would pay the rent @ Rs.3,953/- per month till the eviction of the suit premises.

6. The appellant/defendant in her arguments repeated the contentions as narrated in the memo of appeal and greater emphasis has been made on the point that the appellant/defendant in her written statement submitted in detail that O.N. Thassu was not alone the owner of the suit property. The suit property was owned by one Uma Devi Thassu, there