Sharda Sahakari Mudranalaya Maryadit and Others vs Sureshchand and Others.

Sheel Nagu, J.—Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. The basic facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that suit for eviction on the ground enumerated in sections 12(1)(a), (b), (d) & (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity ''Act of 1961'') was instituted by the landlord against the tenant/appellants herein. After framing the issue and adducing evidence, the trial court found the ground of non payment of arrears of rent u/s 12(1)(a) of Act of 1961 and the ground of bonafide need for business u/s 12(1)(f) to be not established. Whereas, the suit was decreed in favour of the landlord by establishing the ground u/s 12(1)(d) of Act of 1961 of the tenant not having used the premises for which it was let for more than six months and also u/s 12(1)(b) of Act of 1961 of creating sub tenancy.

Aggrieved, the tenant preferred First Appeal u/s 96 of CPC which affirmed the decree passed by the trial court in toto.

Learned counsel for the appellants primarily contends that the legal requirement for passing a decree U/s. 12(1)(b) of Act of 1961 i.e. creation of sub tenancy was not established by the landlord and the landlord-Lallaram failed to establish that sub tenancy was created where Lallaram an employee of the tenant Co-operative Society was found carrying on the business of parchoon (general store). It is further contended on behalf of the appellants/tenant that change of use from printing business to that of a general store has been wrongly found to be proved by the Court below since the society to which the tenanted shop was let could not have changed the use without resolution having been passed. Since no resolution has been passed by the society as none has been proved before the Court below. The ground u/s 12(1)(b) of Act of 1961 could not have been established. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vora Rahimbhai Haji Hasanbhai Popat Vs. Vora Sunderlal Manilal and Another, , M/s. Babu Ram Gopal and others Vs. Mathra Dass, , Bhagwandas Pawaiya Vs. Registered Firm Kailash Narayan and Bros., .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defending the order passed by both the courts below contends that the society changed the use of tenancy from printing business to parchoon shop by creating sub tenancy in favour of Lallaram. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the cases of Purushottam Das & Ors. Vs. Laxmilal reported in 2012 (1) MPLJ 544 & Dhanya Kumar Jain Vs. Mata Prasad Gupta and another,

From perusal of the record and findings rendered by both the Courts below, it is evident that the landlord proved the factum of change use of the tenanted shop from printing to general store by adducing evidence to the effect that no printing work has been done by the society in the tenanted shop. Thus, the burden of establishing the same shifted upon the appellants-tenant which they failed to prove.

The statements of the plaintiffs'' witnesses indicate that the factum of change of printing business into parchoon business was established by the plaintiffs/landlord by contending that no printing work was seen to be done in the shops let to the Society since more than 6 months and that a part of the tenanted shops were occupied by a parchoon shop. Thus, the ground of subletting as well as not having used tenanted premises for the purpose for which it was let for more than 6 months, was made out, thereby, entitling the landlord to a decree.

The grounds raised by the appellants/tenants herein do not in any manner shake the case of the landlords/respondents, which was proved u/s (1)(b) and (d) of the Act of 1961.

No ground for interference appears to be made out in the present second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, which are based more on facts than law. Neither any of the proposed questions of law are made out nor any new ones arise for consideration and, therefore this second appeal deserves to be and is hereby rejected, sans cost.