BALVIR SINGH Vs. KISHANLAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) IN this case respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of bona fide need under section 12(1) (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that appellant-defendant constructed his own house at Halipet Colony, Gwalior and as such he was liable to vacate under section 12 (1) of the Act. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that defendant/ appellant had constructed his own house at Halipet Colony, Gwalior, and decred the suit of the plaintiff under section 12 (1) (i) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The appellant/defendant challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The respondent/plaintiff also filed a cross-objection and prayed that decree under 12 (1) (e) be also granted. The lower appellate Court found that defendant in para one of his statement admitted that in tenanted premise consisted of one room, veranda, latrin-bath room in third floor and one room with tin shed at the fourth floor and he admitted tenancy of plaintiff. The lower appellate Court after examining the judgment and decree of the trial Court and oral and documentary evidence found that defendant Balveer Singh in para 9 of his statement admitted that he purchased Halipet Colony house in the name of his son. In para 13 of his cross-examination,the defendant admitted that he purchased the house in his name vide registered sale deed 6.10.86 and in para 14 of his cross- examination, he admitted that sale deed executed by Govind Ballab Pant Graha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Mahalgaon, Gwalior in his favour in respect of plot No. 54 and total area of plot is 222.83 square meter. The defendant in his statement further stated that suit house was of one room and latrin-Bath room in third floor and one room and tin shed at fourth floor. In para 18 of his cross-examination defendant admitted that Ex. P-19 to P-20 was the card and envelope of marriage of his son Rajesh in which he gave the address of Halipet Colony's house which was constructed by him. The lower appellate Court in view of the above finding, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court under section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. In respect of bona fide need the lower appellate Court has found that Kishan Lal (PW 1) in para 5 of his statement stated that the suit house was required for his family memhers and plaintiff and his sons were not having any other alternative accommodation of his own. The plaintiff Kishan Lal (PW 1) in para 6 of his statement stated that he had one shop in the house of Lohia Bazar in 1st floor. One room was occupied by the son of Pradeep Kumar. In paragraphs 7 and 8 he stated that the present accommodation was not sufficient for his family members as well as the family of Pradeep Kumar. The lower appellate Court found that plaintiff proved his case in respect of bona fide need and decreed the suit under section 12 (1) (e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal of defendant/appellant.