JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.11.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raisen in civil suit No.10-A/2006 whereby trial Court has decreed respondent/plaintiff/landlord’s civil suit for eviction on the grounds under section 12(1)(f),(g)&(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit with the allegations that plaintiff is owner of the shop in question admeasuring 10X20 sq.ft., which was let out on rent by previous owner and landlord Mahendra Singh to the defendant. It is alleged that father of the plaintiff namely Omprakash Bhavsar purchased the building of the shop (total area 10X84 = 840 sq.ft.) vide registered sale deed dated 5.12.1994 from its owner and got raised construction after due permission of the competent authority. After purchase of the shop, the defendant started making payment of rent to the plaintiff and paid monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff upto 31.12.1995 and stopped paying rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996, hence a notice demanding arrears of rent was issued to the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiff and the suit shop has become unsafe for human habitation. It is also alleged that the plaintiff is in need of the shop for starting lodge therein after rebuilding which is not possible without its vacation by the defendant, which shall be started jointly by the plaintiff, Omprakash Bhavsar and Shyamu Bhavsar. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

3. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that monthly rate of rent is Rs.300/- per month and the defendant has never denied title of the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff is not in need of the accommodation for starting lodge and the shop is in good condition. It is also contended that the plaintiff has excessively valued the suit and upon making proper valuation of the suit, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On inter alia contentions prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial Court framed as many as 11 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined himself-Ramu @ Gaurav (PW-1), Harishankar Gadhwal (PW-2) and Omprakash Bhavsar (PW-3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/6). Similarly, the defendant examined himself-Hridesh Dwivedi (DW-1) and Rajendra Tiwari (DW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex. D-1 to D-5(c).

5. After hearing the parties, Trial court upon due consideration of the material available on record, decreed the suit for eviction on the grounds under section 12(1)(f),(g)&(h) of the Act, however, refused to pass decree on the ground under section 12(1)(a)&(c) of the Act and at the same time held the rate of rent to be Rs.300/- per month in place of Rs.1,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that although there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties, but the case of the plaintiff is that his father purchased building of the suit shop from previous owner and landlord Mahendra Singh, as such the plaintiff has no locus to file the suit for his need of starting lodge. He further submits that without there being any sale deed on record, trial court has committed illegality in presuming the plaintiff to be owner of the rented shop and in decreeing the suit. He also submits that trial court without taking into consideration the statement of plaintiff to the effect that he will think over starting of business after completion of master degree, has decreed the suit illegally. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, impugned judgment and decree of eviction passed by trial court is not sustainable.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff su