Decided on April 25,2005

Priti Dubey Appellant
Pramod Kumar Agrawal Respondents


SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/2003 by the District Judge, Raipur (CG) arising out of judgment and decree dated 1-2-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 132-A/2002 by the 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur (C.G.).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the plaintiff namely Pramod Kumar Agrawal filed a civil suit for eviction in relation to a tenanted premises identified as Flat No. 1 in building Kamla Sadan, Brahmanpara, Raipur. The plaint allegations are that this premises was given on monthly rent to defendant No. 1 for residential purposes under a written Agreement (Ex. P-1). It was being used for residential purposes through out. However, in the year 1995, the wife of defendant No. 1 started the work of beautician in one part of the said premises which was objected by the plaintiff. It was not stopped but later on, defendant No. 1 and his entire family left the city and from June, 1995 defendant No. 1 handed over the vacant possession of the suit premises to defendant No. 2. This was done without prior permission of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 also continued the business of beauty parlor in the said premises. Since the rented premises was not vacated even after notice of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit on the ground of sub-letting by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 under Section 12(1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also on the ground of using of premises for a different purpose (for commercial purpose) which is inconsistent with the purpose (residential purpose) for which the tenant was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, under Section 12(1)(c) of the said Act.
(3.) THE defendants filed their joint written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It was contended by them that the said premises was taken on rent by defendant No. 1 both for residential and commercial purposes. It was contended that the wife of defendant No. 1 was doing the work of beautician in one portion of the premises and rest of the portion was used as a residential building since long back and the plaintiff did not take an objection to it. About sub-letting it was specifically denied that defendant No. 1 has given the premises on subletting to defendant No. 2. It was also denied that defendant No. 2 is running a business of beauty parlor in the name and style of Prasadana Beauty Parlor in the said premises.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.