Smt. Kailabai vs Ramcharan Lal Parasar

Brij Kishore Dube, Judge

Heard on the question of admission and perused the record. This Second Appeal u/s 100 of C.P.C., is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 03/05/12 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 19-A/12 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12/01/12 passed by VII Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 5-A/11 by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed u/s 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961).

It is not in dispute that the appellant/defendant is the tenant of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit premises.

The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for the arrears of rent and the eviction on the grounds under Sections 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act, 1961 against the appellant/defendant. The suit for eviction and the arrears of rent was decreed by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Fist Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Both the Courts below after appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for starting the business by his sons and he is having no other alternative suitable accommodation except the suit shop. It was also found that the defendant has not paid the rent also despite notice, therefore, granted the decree under Sections 12(1)(a) and (f) of the Act. The findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material on the record, therefore, there is no perversity in any manner.

In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, I am not inclined to admit this appeal. When this Court is going to dismiss the appeal as no substantial question of law is involved, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for time upto 15/02/2013 to vacate the suit premises by the appellant. In this regard, the learned counsel invites attention of this Court and submits that the appellant sworn affidavit on 13/12/12 to vacate the suit premises which is filed on record along with list of documents. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and facts of the case, this appeal is disposed of with the following terms and conditions:

(i) That, appellant/tenant is granted time upto 15/02/2013 to vacate and handover the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent/landlord;

(ii) That, the appellant/defendant/tenant shall continue to pay the rent to the respondent or deposit in the Trial Court. In case, the appellant deposits the rent in the Trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff shall be free to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant;

(iii) That, the appellant shall not induce any other tenant or deal with the suit premises in any manner; (iv) That, in case if the appellant do not handover the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within the stipulated time, then the execution of the decree shall be done expeditiously in accordance with law;

(v) Let a decree be drawn accordingly.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to cost.