Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1474 (MP)

Rajesh Malviya v. Mahendra Kumar Dixit

2014-11-14

R.S.JHA

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2014, passed by XIV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in C.A.No.259/2012 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2012, passed by XVIII Civil Judge Class-2, Bhopal, in C.S. No.510/2011, whereby the suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed under the provisions of section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the suit under section 12(1)(c) of the Act has been decreed by the Courts below by recording a finding to the effect that the accommodation in question was let out for residential purposes but it was being used by the appellant for non-residential purposes without obtaining due approval or permission of the landlord. It is submitted that the Courts below have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has himself applied for commercial electricity connection in the accommodation while it was let out to the appellant and, therefore, it is clear that the accommodation was in fact let out for nonresidential purposes. It is further stated that the appellant by way of an application under Order 41 rule 27 of the CPC had sought to bring the said document on record before the appellate Court but the same has been rejected. Hence this appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record, it is observed that the Courts below have decreed the suit on the grounds mentioned under sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the appellant is in arrears of rent from 1.8.2010 to 28.2.2011. Nothing has been pointed out or placed before this Court to indicate that the said finding is perverse or not based on material on record. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no fault can be found with the decree of eviction against the appellant under section 12(1)(a) of the Act as admittedly the appellant was and is in arrears of rent. 4. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no fault can be found with the decree of eviction against the appellant under section 12(1)(a) of the Act as admittedly the appellant was and is in arrears of rent. 4. Quite apart from the above, it is further clear from the finding recorded by the Courts below on the basis of analysis of oral and documentary evidence that the accommodation was in fact let out to the appellant for residential purposes but it was being used by him as a Tent House. In such circumstances, mere applying for commercial election connection does not amount permission to change user nor would it render the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard perverse. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for six months’ time to vacate the premises in question. He undertakes that he shall deposit all arrears of rent and pay future rent to the respondent/plaintiff and shall not create any third party rights on the suit property and shall maintain the property in proper condition during this period. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, looking to the fact that the agreement between the parties was only for tenancy of 11 months which has already elapsed in the year 2009, the appellant is granted three months’ time to vacate the suit premises from today subject to the fact that the appellant furnishes an undertaking as stated above within two weeks from today. It is made clear that in case the appellant furnishes such an undertaking within the stipulated period, he would be permitted to occupy the accommodation for a period of three months subject to his complying with the undertaking given by him. It is further made clear that on the appellant committing any breach or on the expiry of the said period, the appellant shall himself vacate the premises or in the alternative, the respondent/plaintiff would be at liberty to get the decree executed immediately in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid, observations, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed. ..............