- (1.) Damadi Lal, Sheo Prasad and Tirath Prasad who were members of a Hindu joint family brought a suit for ejectment on July 31, 1962 against their tenants Begamal and Budharmal on the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) and (f) of Sec. 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, The relevant provisions are in these terms : "Sec. 12. Restriction on eviction of tenants. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more orf the following grounds only, namely:- (a) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner; x x x x x x x x (f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned." Plaintiffs' case under Sec. 12 (1) (a) was that the defendant tenants had defaulted in paying rent for the period October 1, 1961 to May 31, 1962 and did not also pay or tender the amount in arrears within two months of the service of the notice of demand. Clause (f) of Section 12 (1) was invoked on the allegation that the accommodation let was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for the purpose of starting their own business. Before the suit was instituted the plaintiffs had determined the tenancy from May 31, 1962 by a notice dated May 7, 1962. The house in dispute which is in Bazar Chowk in District Satna was let out to the defendants at a monthly rent of Rupees 275/- for the purpose of their business. The plaintiffs reside in village Nadan, Tashil Maihar, where they carry on their business.
(2.) The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated November 11, 1964 dismissed the suit for eviction. There was some dispute between the parties as to the rate of rent; ultimately the plaintiffs admitted that the rent was fixed at Rupees 175/- per month with effect from August 1, 1961 by the Rent Control Authority and a sum of Rs. 1200/- which was the amount in arrears, had been tendered to the plaintiffs by cheque on May 26, 1962 which the plaintiffs refused to accept. The trial Court was of opinion that the refusal was valid because "tendering by cheque is no valid tender" unless there was an agreement that payment by cheque would be acceptable and that he defendants were therefore defaulters within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (a). However, in view of the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenants, which was not determined during the pendency of the suit as required by Sec. 13 (2) the trial Court held that no order for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) could be made in this case and passed a decree for Rs. 1200/- in favour of the plaintiffs.
(3.) On the question of the plaintiffs' requirement of the premises for their own business, the trial Court found itself unable to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. Of the witness examined by the plaintiffs on the point, the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, and 4 was not relied on because none of them was considered to be an independent witness and, further, because it was apparent from their evidence that what they said was that were tutored to say by the plaintiffs. The other three witness were plaintiffs Damadi Lal and Tirath Prasad (P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 respectively) and Radhy Sham (P. W. 5), a son of plaintiff Sheo Prasad. They were also disbelieved because of the following reasons. Damadi Lal tried to give the impression that plaintiffs had no business except the cloth business and the grocery shop at Nadan. He tried to conceal that they had a money-lending business and also agricultural lands. Tirath Prasad stated that the main source of income of the family was from the money lending business. Tirath Prasad also disclosed that the plaintiffs had already a partnership business in cloth at Satna though Damadi Lal and P. W. 5 Radhey Sham did not admit this. It also appears in evidence that the plaintiffs had yet another cloth business at a place called Ramnager which was managed by Radhy Sham. The plaintiffs claimed that they would start a business at Satna, but Damadi Lal's evidence is that they had no income or saving. Tirath Prasad also said that their income was not even sufficient for their maintenance. Admittedly plaintiffs had in their possession one room in the house which was let out to the defendants. The plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence to show how the said accommodation was unsuitable or insufficient for them to start their own business. It was also admitted that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment on an earlier occasion, but the defendants having agreed to pay increased rent the suit was not proceeded with. According to the defendants the present suit was instituted on the defendant's refusal to increase the rent further to Rupees 500/- a month.;