Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 66 (CHH)

P. Rammurti v. Radhamohan Agrawal

2013-02-19

N.K.AGARWAL

body2013
ORDER 1. This is tenant's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1998 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.165-A/98 affirming the eviction decree dated 30.01.1997 passed by IInd Civil Judge, Class-II Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 204A/96. 2. Facts in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that: suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming decree of eviction against the appellant/defendant, pleading inter alia, that the suit premises is in dilapidated condition and is required bona-fide for the occupation of the respondent/plaintiff and his family members after re-construction and they have no other reasonably suitable accommodation of their own in their possession in the city of Bilaspur. 3. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, decreed the suit for eviction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the defendant/appellant on the ground of Section 12(1)(e) of the MP/CG Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961'). 4. First appeal preferred there-against by the appellant/tenant was also dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal. 5. This court admitted the appeal on 16.12.1998 for hearing the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the court below was entitled to grant decree under Section 12(1)(e) as well as under Section 12(1)(h) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in view of the decision rendered by this court in 1998(1) MPJR 462 (Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Thakur Natthu Singh)?" 6. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and decree impugned including records of both the courts below. 7. Both the courts below have found that the landlord/respondent is in bona-fide requirement of the suit premises for his residence after its reconstruction. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Thakur Natthu Singh, 1998 (I) MPJR 462 . In Smt. Parmeshwari Devi’s case it has been laid down that the plea of the landlord that he requires the suit house bonafide for the residence of himself cannot stand together with his plea that he requires the suit premises bona-fide for re-construction. It has, further, been laid down that the requirement of bona-fide re-construction of the suit house cannot be pleaded simultaneously with the plea of bona-fide requirement for personal residence. It has, further, been laid down that the requirement of bona-fide re-construction of the suit house cannot be pleaded simultaneously with the plea of bona-fide requirement for personal residence. Both the pleas are mutually destructive of each other and the vary fact they were pleaded together shows that none of them are bona-fide. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, contended that in view of the decision in Smt. Parmeshwari Devi s case (Supra), both the pleas cannot be taken together and therefore the decree under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, 1961 could not have been passed by the courts below. 9. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view, that it cannot be accepted. In Smt. Parmeshwari Devi’s case (supra), both the pleas were taken simultaneously and where independent while, in the given case, both the pleas were inter-connected. It has specifically been pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent that he will occupy the suit premises after its re-construction. If the two pleas, i.e. plea under Section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(h) of the Act, 1961, are inter-connected and have not been taken interpedently, a decree under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, 1961 can legally be passed. 10. I am fortified in view by the decision of the Supreme Court in case of K.A. Anthappai Vs. C. Ahammed, AIR 1992 SC 1696 wherein it has been laid down that the claim of the landlord that he needs the building bona-fide for his personal occupation cannot be negatived on ground that building requires repair and alterations before landlord can occupy the same. In substance, it has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta Vs. Indradamen Amratlal Sheth, AIR 1964 SC 1676 that in case the landlord requires the tenanted premises bona-fide and genuinely for his own occupation after getting it reconstructed, he need not claim a decree for eviction on the ground of reconstruction/repair (clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961). 11. Indradamen Amratlal Sheth, AIR 1964 SC 1676 that in case the landlord requires the tenanted premises bona-fide and genuinely for his own occupation after getting it reconstructed, he need not claim a decree for eviction on the ground of reconstruction/repair (clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961). 11. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that the plaintiff/respondent came up with a plea that he required the suit premises bona-fide for residence purposes after getting it reconstructed, the courts below have rightly granted decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, 1961, and therefore this appeal is not liable to be allowed. Substantial question of law framed by this court is accordingly I answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. 12. In view of above, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is therefore dismissed. No costs. Appeal Dismissed.