1984 Supreme(MP) 672

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Kanhaiyalal v. State Bank of Indore
S. A. No. 474 of 1977 (I) ; Decided on 17-10-1984.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1967 (M.P.) -S. 72 (7) (c)-inconsistent user -accommodation given on oral lease-part used for residence from very inception of tenancy-not an inconsistent user-decree rightly refused.

       The plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit against the defendants for eviction from the tenanted accommodation on the ground that the accommodation was given on rent to the respondent No.1 State Bank of Indore for starting its Branch and that the same was also being used for. the residence of the Manager and thus the defendants tenant No.1 has done an act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which it was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, i. e. the ground under section 12(1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (for short -the Act).

       The defendants resisted the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was not proved that the defendant No. 1 has done an act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which it was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also unsuccessful.

       Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court the plaint-tiff has preferred this appeal.

       Held: The only ground on which the plaintiff came to the Court is that the tenanted accommodation was given to the Ba.1k for starting its Branch and that the defendant No.1 is using upper floor of the house for the residence of its Branch Manager.

       Now it is admitted that the tenancy is oral and the terms of the tenancy were not reduced to writing. The appellate Court has held that the Branch Manager was residing on the upper floor of the, accommodation since the inception of the tenancy and the appellant had knowledge thereof.

       The appellate Court on consideration of the material on record recorded the finding that considering the nature of the accommodation it was let out to -the defendant for starting the Branch of the Bank as also for the residence of its Agent. In view of the finding recorded by the appellate court it cannot be held that by using the upper floor of the accommodation for the residence of the Branch Manager of the defendant No.1 the defendant has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpnse for which the defendant was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. The appellate Court, therefore, did not commit any error of law in confirming the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit. Appeal dismissed.