Landlords must demonstrate bona fide requirements for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act; non-use of premises for six months provides grounds for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

Heard finally.

2. This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree dated 13-3-2014 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil First Appeal No. 58/2013, by which the judgement and decree dated 16-7-2013 passed by the learned Class – I, Indore in COS No. 99A/12 for eviction under section 12(1)(d) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act of 1961’) was confirmed.

3. This appeal was admitted on 9-4-2015 on the following substantial questions of law :—

“(a) Whether the learned Courts below have erred in law in passing the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Although the respondent has sufficient accommodation available with him?

(b) Whether the tenancy of the appellants was terminated by respondent as per requirements of law and hence decree for eviction is contrary to provisions of law?”

4. Heard on I.A. No. 4833 of 2019 which is an application filed under section 100 (5) of CPC for framing of additional substantial questions of law.

4.1 Shri Sethi, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that although the appeal has been admitted on the substantial questions of law involving section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961, however, due to oversight, section 12(1)(d) of the Act of 1961 could not be mentioned in it. Thus, it is submitted that additional substantial questions of law be also framed involving section 12(1)(d) of the Act of 1961.

4.2 The prayer is opposed by the counsel for the respondent and it is submitted that no substantial question of law can be framed subsequently.

4.3 On due consideration of the application and on perusal of the record, it is found that an additional substantial question of law No. (c) would also be made out as under :

“(c). Whether, the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were justified in passing a decree for eviction under section 12(1)(d) of the Act of 1961?”

4.4 Accordingly, the appeal is also heard on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

INTERLOCULATORY APPLICATIONS.

5. Since there are as many as four Interlocutory Applications filed by the Appellants/defendant, either to bring additional documents on record or to amend the written statement, it is necessary to decide the same before proceeding with the matter on merits. These applications are being decided as hereunder :—

5.1 Heard on I.A. No. 264 of 2015, which is an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151 of CPC to bring additional documents on record.

5.2 In the aforesaid application, it is stated by the appellants that the respondent had come out with a case that he does not owns and possesses any alternative accommodation and although it is mentioned that two Apartments No. 301/309 and 201/210 at Bansi Palaza, admeasuring 581 square feet and 1100 square feet are jointly owned by the respondent with some other person, but it is stated that these two apartments are residential and due to non-availability of the space, he is using the same for non-residential purposes. It is also stated in this application that the respondent did not file any document to show that the said two apartments are of residential use. However,