Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1150 (MP)

Mehandi Hussain v. Rajesh Kumar

2005-11-16

A.K.AWASTHY

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-defendant has filed this second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 9.2.2005 passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge Alirajpur District Jhabua in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge Class I, Alirajpur District Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2002 wherein the decree was passed against the appellant defendant under section 12 (I) (c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant is the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 441/- in the suit shop situated at Kothari Markt, Alirajpur measuring 10x 10ft. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is running the shop of electrical goods and suit shop is adjacent to his shop and plaintiff is not having enough space to carryon his business. The plaintiff is not having any other suitable accommodation in the town. That, defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff of the suit shop. 4. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff has filed the suit simply for the enhancement of the rent and he is having enough space in his shop to run the business. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has given on rent other shops and his requirement is not bona tide. 5. The plaintiff has filed the copy of the statement of the defendant made before the Court marked as Ex. P-57 and 58 wherein he has clearly admitted that the plaintiff Rajesh is the landlord and he is his tenant. The rent receipts Ex. P-10 to P-55 also corroborates the statement of the plaintiff that defendant is his tenant in the suit shop. Admittedly, the suit shop is adjacent to the shop of the plaintiff. The defendant (DW 1) and his witness Kalu (DW 3) in paragraph 6 have clearly admitted that the plaintiff is keeping his electrical goods outside his shop. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve that the requirement of the plaintiff of the suit shop is genuine. 6. The concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff bona fide required the suit shop and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation is based on proper and detailed discussion of the evidence by Courts below. The defendant has admitted in his statement on oath Ex. 6. The concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff bona fide required the suit shop and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation is based on proper and detailed discussion of the evidence by Courts below. The defendant has admitted in his statement on oath Ex. P-57 in paragraph 3 that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop. Consequently, the Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned decree of ejectment against the appellant under section 12(1)(c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. No substantial question of law exists. 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. The defendant prays for time to vacate the suit shop. Time of six months is provided to the appellant to vacate the suit shop on the condition that the undertaking in writing is given by the appellant before the trial Court within 15 days that he will positively vacate the suit shop within six months.