Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 672 (MP)

Surendra Kumar Pandey v. Sanjay Kumar

2014-06-18

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2014
Judgment: J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2005 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Datia in Civil Appeal No. 21A/2004 confirming the findings of Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhander in Civil Suit No. 24A/2004 vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.04 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction has been decreed on the ground of bonafide need, setting aside the decree on the ground of arrears of rent of the trial court. 3. The plaintiff's case in brief was that the suit shop is situated in Hanumantpura Kasba Bhander bearing house no. 60/6 wherein the defendant is a tenant. It is said that the defendant has not deposited the rent regularly however the eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent. Inter alia contended that the plaintiff is an unemployed person and want to run his grocery business in the suit shop for which no other reasonable suitable alternative accommodation of his own is available in the township of Bhander, therefore, the eviction may also be directed on the ground of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). 4. The defendant by filing the written statement had accepted the ownership of the plaintiff on the said suit shop wherein it is also stated that the defendant was a tenant w.e.f. 9.8.02 for a period of 10 months at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and not as Rs. 450/- per month. The liability to pay the electric charges by the defendant has also been denied. It is said that the plaintiff himself has refused to accept the rent therefore the rent cannot be deposited well within the time. It is further contended that the plaintiff is not an unemployed person and also denied the need to run his grocery business. It is said that other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own is available in the township of Bhander, therefore the need of the plaintiff cannot be said to be genuine however prayer was made to dismiss the suit. 5. Learned trial court has framed various issues and after adducing the evidence by the parties decreed the same on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act. 5. Learned trial court has framed various issues and after adducing the evidence by the parties decreed the same on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act. On filing the appeal by the defendant/appellant, lower appellate court while affirming the decree under Section 12(1)(f), set aside the decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously urged and submitted that the requirement as pleaded by the plaintiff is not bonafide because the defendant is a tenant since 1989 continuously and the plaintiff is running his business adjacent to the shop of his grand father. The two courts below have not considered the aforesaid fact. In addition the plaintiff has other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Bhander therefore also bonafide need cannot be said to be genuine. In view of the foregoing it is urged that the finding as recorded of eviction of the appellant, is unsustainable. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop. By producing a document i.e. certificate of the municipal council Bhander (Ex-P/3) it is said that Bhawan No. 60 situated in Ward No. 6 is registered in the name of the plaintiff and no other alternative accommodation except that is available to him in the Township of Bhander. The said document has not been rebutted by the defendant by producing any document or oral evidence. In such circumstances it can safely be held that to run the business, to the plaintiff, no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation of his own is available to him in the Township of Bhander. On the point of bonafide need plaintiff has specifically urged that he is unemployed and want to start the grocery business. The said testimony remained in ocular supported by the testimony of the other witnesses in the court. Considering the aforesaid and the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, having tenancy in the suit premises since 1989 had no relevance and need of the plaintiff appears to be bonafide. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below regarding bonafide need concurrently, do not warrant any interference. 8. Considering the aforesaid and the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, having tenancy in the suit premises since 1989 had no relevance and need of the plaintiff appears to be bonafide. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below regarding bonafide need concurrently, do not warrant any interference. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the two courts below have rightly granted the decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need to the plaintiff which do not warrant any interference by this court. 9. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 10. C.c. as per rules.