SIDDHNATH Vs. KALURAM
LAWS(MPH)-1980-1-9
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on January 17,1980

SIDDHNATH Appellant
VERSUS
KALURAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MURLI DHAR V. CHUNI LAL [REFERRED TO]
TANSUKHDAS V. SMT. SHAMBAI [REFERRED TO]
D N SANGHAVI AND SONS VS. AMBALAL TRIBHUWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN KUMAR VS. DHYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHHOGLAL VS. IDOL OF BHAGWAN SHRI SATYANARAYAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

J JACOBS VS. S C BARAT [LAWS(MPH)-1982-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA DEVI VS. SHIV PARVATI MANDIR [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
DAYARAM CHOUHAN VS. CHAGGANLAL PARMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-108] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.L.Oza, J. - (1.)This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-tenants against a decree for eviction granted for a shop and a godown on the ground Under Section 12 (1) (a) for the tenant having failed to pay arrears of rent as required by this provision and under Section 12 (1) (b) on the allegation that the premises have been sublet.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit against the appellants on the allegation that appellant Siddhnath had taken from him the suit shop described in the plaint paragraph 16 (a) with effect from 3-4-1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and executed a rent note in his favour. It is further alleged that he also took a godown described in paragraph 16 (b) of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- with effect from 20-2-1961. It was further alleged that the tenancy so far as the shop is concerned, commenced from the 3rd of every English calendar month and for the godown from the 1st of the English calendar month.
(3.)It was alleged that the defendant-appellant was irregular in payment of rent and up to 2-12-1963 he was in arrears of Rs. 440/-in respect of the shop and of Rs. 590/- up to November 1963 in respect of the aodown. It was also alleged that he failed to pay or tender the above arrears within two months of service of demand notices Exs. P/1 and P/2 served on him. It was alleged that the plaintiff-respondent needed these premises genuinely for his own business and that for that purpose no other suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Indore is available. It was further alleged that the defendant-appellant No. 1 Siddhnath without consent or permission of the plaintiff-respondent sublet the suit premises to the firm Bombay Garage, defendant-appellant No. 2, and, therefore, is also liable for eviction on that ground. The plaintiff-respondent terminated the tenancy of the defendant-appellant in respect of both the premises by service of registered notices Exs. P/1 and P/2 and as the defendant-appellants failed to comply with the notices the suit was filed for eviction.


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