JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by appellant/tenant under section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 19.1.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Jobat District Jhabua, in Civil Appeal No.17-A/2003 confirming the judgment and decree passed on 22.07.2003 in Civil Suit No. 3A/2000 by Civil Judge Class I Jobat Distt. Jhabua.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal for final hearing on 22.3.2005 has framed the following substantial questions of law :

(i) whether the Courts below are justified in passing decree for eviction under sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(n) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?

(ii) whether the Courts below have right held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and respondent?

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant while taking exception to the impugned judgments and decrees has made sincere efforts persuading this Court that findings recorded are perverse in nature and de-hors the material on record. Learned counsel submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that either of two grounds; sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(n) of the Act related to “payment of arrears of rent within the prescribed time on receipt of notice of demand by the landlord and “ that since the rented accommodation is an open land of 1600 sq ft area, landlord requires the same to raise construction on it” were not proved regard being had to the evidence placed on record. Hence, the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord while referring to findings of Courts below on aforesaid two grounds submits that both the Courts below upon meticulous examination of evidence placed on record have recorded impregnable finding of the fact related to grounds for eviction under sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(n)of the Act. There is no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, has prayed for dismissal of appeal.

5. Both the Courts below upon critical evaluation of evidence placed on record have decreed the suit u/ss. 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(n) of the Act. Finding of facts so recorded are now open for review u/S 100 CPC.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has made fair submission contending that in the event this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the fact, some breathing time may be given to the appellant/tenant to vacate the suit premises.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer contending that appellant/tenant has occupied the premises for long time.The original landlord/Maheshwari Samaj had filed the suit for eviction in the year 2000. More than twenty years period has passed by, the respondent have been struggling hard seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that some equitable balance is required to be struck considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for one and a half year time for vacating the suit premises, but this Court does not accede to the said period of time and restricts the same to one year on the following terms and conditions :-

(i) the appellant/tenant shall continue to pay the rent regularly without default to the respondent/landlord on every 5th day of succeeding month till expiry of one year.

(ii) the appellant shall not create any third party right over the suit property;

(iii) the appellant shall not change or alter the suit premises in any matter whatsoever;

(iv) the appellant/tenant shall vacate and handover the peaceful possession of suit premises to the respondent/landlord without any resistance within a period of one year i.e. on or before 18.3.2022;

(v) If the appellant/tenant fails to deliver peaceful possession on or before 18.3.2022, the respondent/landlord shall be free to approach the concerned police station for providing police h