1984 Supreme(MP) 448

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Shantilal v. Gauswami.
S. A. No. 568 of 1974 (I); Decided on 9-8-1984.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S. 12 (1) (a) -- suit filed before expiry of two months from service of demand notice -- no cause of action available.

        (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P ) -- S. 12 (1) (c) -- title of landlord challenged in reply to demand notice -- Courts found plaintiff to be landlord -- suit held rightly decreed.

        (3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 479-A -- direction for filing complaint under -- should not be given after 14 years against defendant already evicted.

        The plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground covered by section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The defendant resisted the suit. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit. The appeal preferred by the defendant was also unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate Court the defendant has preferred this appeal.

        Held : As regards the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, the plaintiff gave notice (Ex. P-2) dated 27-12-1968 demanding arrears of rent from the defendant. The notice was served upon the defendant on 1-1-1964. However, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 11-2-1969 i.e. before the expiry of two months from the service of demand notice upon the defendant. In the circumstances, the cause of action for eviction under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act did not accrue when the suit was filed; and the Courts below committed an error of law in passing decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act.

        However, the defendant in reply to the notice denied the title of the plaintiff to the tenanted accommodation and he also denied execution of the rent note by him in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff was the landlord and that the defendant had executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any such infirmity on the finding recorded by the appellate Court which may vitiate the same. In the circumstances, the Courts below did not commit any error in passing decree for eviction under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.

        The trial Court had also given a direction for filing a complaint against the defendant under section 479 (A) of the Code of Criminal. Procedure for giving false evidence regarding execution of the rent note. The appellate Court has maintained the said direction. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the possession of the tenanted accommodation has already been taken by the plaintiff from the appellant and that the matter is quite old and it would not be expedient to file a complaint against the appellant. In my opinion, this contention deserves to be accepted, as it would not be expedient to file a complaint against the defendant after lapse of 14 years and more, particularly when the appellant has already been dispossessed from the tenanted accommodation. The direction for filing of the complaint against the defendant is therefore set aside. Appeal dismissed.