SHIVNARAYAN Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal by the tenant is directed against judgment and decree dated 19-11-2003 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 20/2003. By the impugned judgment and decree appeal preferred by the present appellant was dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of appellant on the allegation that appellant is the tenant of the plaintiff and is residing in House No. 234 (old No. 134) Nayapura, Badnagar. The tenancy is monthly and appellant is paying Rs. 30/- per month as rent for the tenanted premises. The case of plaintiff was that appellant had constructed his own residential accommodation and is residing with his family members but to avoid delivery of vacant possession of the tenanted premises he has inducted his own brother as sub-tenant in the suit accommodation. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for eviction on the ground under Section 12 (1) (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short Act ). Appellant although admitted that the residential house has been constructed but denied the eviction on the ground that the said house is in the name of his wife and the appellant is not living with his wife. With this allegation the appellant resisted suit. Parties lead their respective evidence and learned Trial Court after analysing the evidence found that the plaintiff has made out case for eviction, therefore, granted a decree under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decree appellant unsuccessfully preferred First Appeal that too was dismissed by the lower Appellant Court as mentioned here in above.

(3.) SHRI M. K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for appellant assailed the judgment of Trial Court as well as of lower Appellate Court and submitted that lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the decision of this Court reported in 1986 MPLJ 530 (Sanchidanand Garg v. Govindlalji Maharaj Nathdwara ). Shri Jain further submitted that reliance placed by the Courts below on the decision reported in 1998 (2) MPLJ 50 (Dudhnath v. Ashok Mahadev Sangewar) is bad in law inasmuch as without referring to the earlier decision reported in Sachidananad's case (supra), subsequent decision is per in curium and has to be ignored. In support of this contention, Shri Jain has relied on decision reported in 2000 (3) MPLJ 27 (Union of India v. Raju Construction Company ).