A tenant must regularly pay rent to retain occupancy; eviction can be granted even for a single default in payment.

JUDGMENT :

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.

1. This second appeal is preferred by appellants-Kabir Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed (LRs of original plaintiff-Mst. Chhotam Bi) but during pendency of second appeal both the appellants also died, hence the present appellants were substituted at their place. Similarly, during pendency of second appeal original tenant/defendant-Sheikh Habib, also died and his legal representatives were substituted at his place.

2. Instant second appeal is preferred at the instance of plaintiffs/landlord challenging judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur, in civil appeal no.235-A/87 affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.1987 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Burhanpur, in civil suit no.24A/86, whereby Courts below have concurrently dismissed plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the ground of default in payment of rent available under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

3. Facts, in short are that, the original plaintiff Mst. Chhotam Bi instituted the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act as well as for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-Sheikh Habib for eviction of rented house with the allegations that the defendant is tenant on the basis of oral agreement of tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- but he never paid the rent timely and is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.1982, which he has not paid in spite of issuance/service of notice of demand dated 12.02.1985 (Ex.P/1). After service of notice he did not even reply the notice and neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the house. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant it is contended that in fact the house was taken on rent @ of Rs.6/- per month, which was enhanced time to time from Rs.6/- to Rs.12/-, therefore, it is denied that the defendant is tenant on rent of Rs.50/- p.m. and is in arrears of rent. It is contended that the defendant has paid rent upto the month of January, 1985 and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant shall pay amount of house tax and the same will be adjusted in the monthly rent. In the month of February 1985, the plaintiff and his nephew asked the defendant to increase monthly rent from Rs.12/- to Rs.50/-, then the defendant asked the plaintiff to adjust the amount of tax already paid by the defendant, thereupon, dispute arose and the plaintiff threatened the defendant to recover the amount in Court. It is contended that in fact the rent is due from February, 1985 till the date of suit and not from 01.09.1982. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. In support of the plaint averments, the plaintiff examined herself-Chhotam bi (PW-1) & Farukh Mohd. Khan (PW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 and P/2). Similarly the defendant also examined himself-Sheikh Habib (DW-1) & Ratilal (DW-2) and also produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/6).

6. After hearing the parties, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.1987 dismissed the suit and upon filing appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants, the same was affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999. Against which, instant second appeal is preferred which came in hearing on 24.11.2000 and was admitted for final hearing on