Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - (1.)This Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 14/03/2014 passed by VIIIth ADJ, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.14-A/12, whereby learned ADJ partly allowed the appeal and partly modified the judgment and decree dated 24/08/2012 passed by XIIIth Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.19-A/2009, whereby learned Civil Judge decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of Section 12(1) (b) and (m) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961( for brevity "The Act") and directed the appellant to give vacant possession of Shop No.17 situated on the ground floor at Shri Gujarati Mandal Market Marhatal, Jabalpur (further referred as suit shop) within two months to the respondent and held that the respondent is only entitled to take vacant possession of suit shop from appellant on the ground of Section 12(1)(b) of "The Act".
(2.)Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this second appeal are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.19-A/09 before XIIIth Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur for getting vacant possession of suit shop from appellant/defendant averring that the respondent/plaintiff Shri Gujrati Mandal is a registered society and owner of suit shop No.17 and appellant is a tenant of the respondent in the suit shop @ Rs.450/- p.m. The suit shop was letout for non-residential purpose. He further averred that the appellant is highly irregular in making the payment of monthly rent of the suit shop to the plaintiff. The appellant has not paid rent of the suit shop from the month of November, 2004 till date inspite of repeated demands. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 20/10/2005 through its counsel to the appellant calling upon her to pay all the arrears of rent. But even after service of notice, the appellant did not pay rent due on him. On the contrary, in the reply of the notice she disputed the arrears of rent as claimed in the said notice. As per tenancy agreement, the appellant agreed to pay all the corporation taxes in respect of the suit shop to the plaintiff. But the appellant did not pay the corporation taxes of the suit shop to the plaintiff amounting to Rs.7,301/- for the period from 1997-98 to 2006-07 inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff. Appellant also removed the wall of the suit shop without the written consent, authority and knowledge of the plaintiff and also damaged the suit shop and has materially and substantially altered the suit shop, due to which the value of the suit shop was also diminished. The appellant without the written consent, authority or knowledge of the respondent has illegally and unauthorisedly occupied and taken possession of the open space lying in front of the suit shop, which was not let-out to the appellant nor included in the tenancy premises and which does not form part of the tenancy premises. The appellant has illegally unauthorisedly and without the consent, authority or knowledge of the plaintiff sub-let and part with possession of the suit shop to Shri Sunil Khandelwal, who is presently running his business in the suit shop. So, appellant is directed to remove the encroachment to the open space encroached by him and also pay arrears of rent Rs.7,301/- and gave vacate possession of the suit shop to respondent.
(3.)Appellant/Defendant in his written statement denied all the allegations and submitted that the appellant regularly paid rent of the suit shop and also agreed to pay all the corporation taxes and also denied from the fact that without the written consent authority and knowledge of the plaintiff removed the wall of the suit shop and also damaged the suit shop, no addition or alteration has been done by the appellant and also denied from the fact that she unauthorisedly without written consent of the respondent occupied and took possession of open space and sub-let the suit premises to Sunil Khandelwal and she shifted to her parental house and prayed for dismissal of the suit.