Gouri Shankar Rajak vs Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant/tenant, the appellant herein, is against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 9.7.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2012 by the II Additional District Judge Katni, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011, passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2010 by the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-II Katni.

A suit was fled by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/tenant, on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). It was contended that the appellant/defendant was in arrears of rent and even after demand, the same was not paid by him. It was contended that the respondent/plaintiff was in need of the house for the purposes of residence of his son and he was not having any other suitable accommodation within the city. It was also alleged that the house was in dilapidated condition as it was 80 years old and after demolishing the said house, the respondent/plaintiff was intending to construct a house for his son. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that arrears of rent was already paid, there was no default on the part of the appellant/defendant in making payment of rent. It was contended that there were other suitable accommodation available within the city of residence of sons of the respondent/plaintiff. The accommodation from other tenants were got vacated and one house was sold by the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the alleged need of the landlord was not bonafide. The house was not in a dilapidated condition and its reconstruction was not necessary. For the said purpose also, no eviction decree could be passed.

The trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence of parties and reached to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has proved his claim for grant of decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(g) of the Act and decreed the suit. The appellant/defendant preferred a first appeal before the lower appellate Court, which also after reappreciation of evidence, affirmed the findings with regard to the grant of decree of eviction against the appellant/defendant under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act. However, the eviction decree granted under Section 12(1)(g) of the Act was set aside. Hence, this appeal.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence available on record, it was amply proved that the suitable accommodation was available to the landlord plaintiff/respondent to make arrangements for living of his sons. From the evidence available on record, it is also proved that other accommodations were got vacated by the plaintiff/respondent from other tenants, but insistence was made to get the house vacated so as to let it out on a higher rent. That being so, the bonafide need of the respondent/plaintiff was not made out and, therefore, the decree could not have been granted on this count as well. Since this aspect is not considered by the two Courts below, the evidence is not properly assessed, the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

Such a contention of learned counsel for the appellant are tested. True it is that facts have been stated by the witnesses about other accommodations, but there the categorical statement made is that though the accommodations were in dilapidated conditions and one of the house has been demolished completely during the pendency of the suit. The intention of the landlord was to get the complete house constructed as it was not possible for the respondent/plaintiff to get the house constructed only on the place where earlier an old house was situated. It was also proved that the maintenance of the house was not done properly and, therefore, looking to the age of the house, it was likely to be demolished. This fact was also proved that the other part of the house were demolished 5-6 years back. If this piece of evidence is appreciated by the Courts below and if it is recorded that the intention of the respondent/plaintiff was not ulterior to get the house vacated for the purposes of letting it out on a higher rent and that the appellant/defendant has completed failed to prove that the other suitable alternative accommodation was available to the respondent/plaintiff, it cannot be said that an error of law was committed by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence. Even the witness of the appellant/defendant has admitted that he was knowing whether there was any other suitable accommodation available to the respondent/plaintiff to fulfill his need or not. That being so, if the Courts below have reached to the conclusion that the landlord plaintiff has made out a case for grant of a decree of eviction on bonafide need, no error of law is committed by the Courts below. Thus, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is bound to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed that sometime may be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises as he is a tenant for a long time and it would be difficult for him to get arrangements for shifting from the demise premises.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed such a prayer contending that while the decree was granted by the trial Court, two months'' time was allowed to the appellant to vacate the premises, but instead of vacating the said premises, an appeal was preferred and an interim stay was obtained.

After considering the rival submissions in this respect, this Court deems it proper and justify to grant four months'' time to the appellant to vacate the demise premises.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted four months'' time to vacate the demise premises. Let the possession of the demise premises be handed over to the respondent on or before 15th of August 2015, failing which the respondent/plaintiff would be entitled to get the decree executed.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.