KASTOOR CHAND JAIN Vs. KODULAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed by the defendant, is directed against a decree of the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 14th Dec. 1965, affirming the judgment and decree of the IInd Civil Judge, II class Jabalpur, dated 31st July 1965, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for his eviction from the suit premises.

(2.) The material facts are these. The parties stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff filed this suit for eviction under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The plaintiff alleged that he genuninely required the suit premises for his residential purposes. He wants to shift his residence from mouza Chargawan in Tehsil Patan to the demised premises and admittedly he has no other residential house in Jabalpur. At mouza Chagawan, the plaintiff is living in a rented premises, comprising of one room, with his wife and a son and they are facing great hardship and inconvenience due to shortage of accmmodation there. It was further alleged that the defendant is in arrears with the rent and although served with a notice of demand on 16th July 1963, has failed to comply with the demand. The defendant disputed the claim on various grounds, alleging that the suit premises were non-residential and, therefore, could not be had for residential use, that the alleged need is not bona fide, thus he was not in arrears claiming that he had spent over the house and is entitled to an adjustment, and that the notice did not validly determine the tenancy etc. etc. In view of the plea that the house was non-residential, the plaintiff amended the plaint and also asserted a business requirement, in the alternative, but it is no longer necessary to consider that purpose because the demised premises were admittedly let out to the defendant initially for his residential use and nearly because subsequently diverted a portion of the same, by starting a rikshwa business, that would neither convert the nature of the lease nor would it convert the premises into a non-residential one. Thus the premises are residential in nature.

(3.) The trial court held that the suit premises, which were residential in nature, were needed by the plaintiff bona fide, for his residence, and that the defendant was in arrears of rent and had failed to comply with the notice of demand for payment and, it accordingly, granted to him a decree for eviction under section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The decree has been affirmed in appeal. There was no ground raised in the appeal assailing that part of the decree which allowed eviction under section 12(l)(a). It was also admitted at the hearing of the appeal, that the defendant had failed to deposit arrears of rent in court. That admission, itself, was sufficient for a dismissal of the appeal as the plaintiff, hereby, became entitled to a decree. Nevertheless, the court below also considered the other ground and found that the plaintiff had a genuine requirement of the premises for his residential purposes, and, therefore, affirmed on that ground as well.