ANCHAL MISHRA Vs. SHANKAR SINGH RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has directed this appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2009 passed by 20th Additional District Judge, District Jabalpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 27-A/09 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24-2-2009 passed by the 11th Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Original Civil Suit No. 112-A/08, decreeing the suit of the respondent for eviction against the appellant with respect of a shop the non-residential accommodation described in the plaint, situated in Adhartal, Jabalpur.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the appellant with respect of the abovementioned shop situated in Adhartal, Jabalpur, described with all particulars in the plaint and also shown in the annexed map with the plaint, on the ground of arrears of rent under section 12(l)(a) and also on the ground of his genuine requirement of the disputed accommodation under section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the business of his sons Naval Kishore and Manish for which they did not have any other accommodation of his own in the city of Jabalpur. As per some other averments of the plaint, the appellant is stated to be his monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month in such shop for non-residential purpose. The appellant, being defaulter in payment of the rent, did not pay the rent between 1-11-2009 to 31-5-2002, on which, a demand notice was given by him to the appellant through his counsel vide dated 1-6-2002. The same was served, in spite that, within the statutory period, the rent was not paid. Besides this, the respondent is in need of the alleged accommodation for the business of his son Naval Kishore for opening the General Store. At present, he is working in the shop of his younger brother. The need of Manish is also stated in the plaint. In these circumstances, prayer for eviction on the abovementioned ground is made.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant, by admitting the tenancy of the accommodation, the rate of rent was disputed stating that the same is Rs. 250/-per month and accordingly the same was regularly paid to the respondent. Appellant also spent Rs. 17000/- in repairing for keeping the disputed house in tenanted condition and as per agreement with the respondent, the same was to be adjusted in the sum of the rent. In such premises, no default has been committed by him in payment of the monthly rent. On the contrary the appellant has claimed against the respondent Rs. 8000/-. In addition, it is stated that the respondent is having three vacant shops of his own in possession and, in such premises, the alleged need could not be deemed to be neither bona fide nor genuine. Only for creating the undue pressure for enhancing the rent of the accommodation upto Rs. 1000/-, the suit has been filed with mala fide intention and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.