Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1 (CHH)

UNION OF INDIA v. GANESHI LAL DURGA PRASAD

2014-01-01

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Union of India and four others/defendants/appellants herein have filed the instant appeal calling in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.12.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No. 19-A/1992, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein has been allowed and the plaintiff has been granted a decree of eviction in his favour. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under:- (2.1) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the appellants/defendants stating inter alia that the suit accommodation was let out to the appellants/defendants in the year 1978 and the monthly tenancy commences from the 1st day of the each calendar month and ends on the last day of the calendar month on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. It was further pleaded that the suit accommodation was required bond fidely by the respondent/ plaintiff for staring business of a hotel and he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in the township of Manendragarh. It was further pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff is also entitled for a decree under Section 12(1)(h) of the MP/CG. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act, 1961) as the suit accommodation let out to the appellants/defendants has become dilapidated and it requires substantive repairs and it has become dangerous for human habitation. (2.2) On being summoned, the appellants/defendants filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that the suit accommodation was let out to the defendants on 11.2.1979. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has other residential and non-residential acconm10dation in the township of Manendragarh and the plaintiff is seeking eviction of the suit accommodation on the pretext of starting business of a hotel. The main ground raised by the plaintiff under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act, 1961 was also opposed by the appellants/defendants in the written statement. (2.3) The trial Court, after framing issues, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by the impugned judgment and decree holding that the grounds raised under clauses (f) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 are established. (2.4) Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants/defendants have filed the instant appeal. 3. (2.4) Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants/defendants have filed the instant appeal. 3. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants/ defendants would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in granting the decree under clauses (f) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. She would further submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the aforesaid two grounds claiming eviction have been established is not only perverse but also contrary to the material available on record. 4. Per contra, Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court is absolutely justified in granting the decree of eviction as there is legal evidence of clinching nature available on record to hold that the grounds under clauses (f) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 are fully established on record entitling the respondent/plaintiff by a decree for eviction of the suit accommodation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the pm1ies and have considered the rival submissions made therein. I have also perused the record of the civil suit. 6. The question arising for determination in this appeal would be thus:- Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the respondent/plaintiff has established the grounds under clauses (f) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 to have a decree of eviction? Ground under clause (f): 7. I shall first take-up the legality of finding with regard to ground under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. 8. Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 runs thus: "12. Ground under clause (f): 7. I shall first take-up the legality of finding with regard to ground under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. 8. Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 runs thus: "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (f) That the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned." 9. A bare perusal of above clause (f) would make it evident that a landlord is entitled for the suit accommodation if the accommodation let out for non-residential purpose is required bona fide by him for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. 10. In the case in hand, there is no dispute on the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit accommodation and it is also not in dispute that the accommodation was let out by the plaintiff to the defendants for non-residential purpose. The question is whether the suit accommodation is required bona fide by the plaintiff for starting his business. In order to establish the said fact, the plaintiff has examined himself before the trial Court and has categorically stated before the trial Court that he, along with his grand son, who is aged about 18-19 years, wishes to start a hotel in the suit accommodation after dismantling the same. In order to establish the said fact, the plaintiff has examined himself before the trial Court and has categorically stated before the trial Court that he, along with his grand son, who is aged about 18-19 years, wishes to start a hotel in the suit accommodation after dismantling the same. He has stated that he has necessary funds for starting the hotel as the suit accommodation is located near the bus-stand. In the cross-examination, nothing has been brought to say that the suit accommodation is not required bona fide by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the appellants/defendants that the plaintiff has other non-residential alternative accommodation in his possession in which he can start the business of a hotel. Thus, the decree granted by the trial Court on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961 is hereby affirmed, as the same is not perverse and contrary to the record. Ground under clause (h): 11. This takes me to the next ground under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 found established by the trial Court. 12. Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 runs thus: "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law .or contract, no suit shall be filed in Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (h) That the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated." 13. A bare perusal of clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 makes it clear that a suit for eviction can be filed on the ground that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord/plaintiff for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or alterations cannot be carried out without the suit accommodation being vacated. 14. The plaintiff has filed documents Ex.P-1 to P-6 in support of his case. 14. The plaintiff has filed documents Ex.P-1 to P-6 in support of his case. These documents clearly show that the appellants/defendants themselves complained to the respondent/plaintiff that the suit accommodation is not in proper condition and the rainy water enters the office which causes prejudice to the interest of the records kept in the suit accommodation. The Superintendent of Post Offices made a request to the plaintiff vide Ex.P-4 that immediate monsoon repairs may be made in the suit accommodation which also stands corroborated by Ex.P-5 dated 5.9.1991 that the toilet, bathroom and the walls are in dilapidated condition. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit accommodation is in dilapidated condition and it requires bona fide by the landlord/ plaintiff and the desired building or re-building cannot be carried out without the suit accommodation being vacated. Thus, I hold that the ground under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 is also rightly held to be proved by the trial Court. 15. Consequently, the impugned decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff is hereby affirmed and the appeal preferred by the defendants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. At this stage, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellants/ defendants prays for 9 months' time to vacate the suit accommodation stating infer alia that at present the Post Office is running in the suit accommodation and in order to shift the Post Office from the suit accommodation various sanctions and permissions would be required. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff seriously opposed the prayer for grant of time stating that the suit for eviction was filed on 15.12.1992. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff seriously opposed the prayer for grant of time stating that the suit for eviction was filed on 15.12.1992. Considering the fact that at present the Post Office is running in the suit accommodation and it is providing essential services to the residents of the nearby locality, I deem it appropriate to grant 6 months' time from today to the appellants/defendants to vacate the suit accommodation provided the appellants/defendants furnishes an unde11aking before the trial Court within a period of 1 month from today that they shall vacate the suit accommodation on completion of the stipulated period of 6 months from today and shall deposit the monthly rent of the suit accommodation in the trial Court regularly on every last day of the monthly tenancy till vacation of the suit accommodation by them within the stipulated period. 17. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.