SATISH CHANDRA BABULAL AGARWAL Vs. JANKI PRASAD UDAIJIT TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the tenant against the affirming judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was admitted for hearing on 25-3-1985 on the following two substantial questions of law :

(2.) IT was not disputed that the suit accommodation was let out for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/ -. The municipal taxes were payable by the tenant. C. S. No. 56-A/7"7 for arrears of rent for the period l-7i1976 to 31-10-1976 and for ejectment of the appellant from the suit accommodation on the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (in short, the "act") was earlier filed by the respondent against the appellant in the court of II Civil Judge, Class II, Damoh. By his judgment and decree dated 1-12-1977 (Ex. P. 1), the learned Civil Judge was pleased to decree the claim of the respondent for arrears of rent but to dismiss his claim for ejectment on the ground under Section 12 (l) (a) of the Act, because in compliance with Section 13 (1) of the Act, the arrears were deposited in Court in time or within the extended period given by the Court to the tenant. The present suit for arrears of rent for the period between 1-10-1979 to 30-6-1981 i. e. for 21 months, for municipal taxes to the tune of Rs. 298/- and for ejectment on the grounds under Section 12 (l) (a) and (f) of the Act was filed on 7-7-1981 by the respondent. It was alleged that in spite of demand notice dated 30-3-1981 (Ex. P. 5), served on 31-3-1981, the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected from the suit accommodation under Section 12 (l) (a) of the Act. It was further claimed that the plaintiff had retired from Government services with effect from the afternoon of 30-9-1979. He wanted to start his business in the suit accommodation. He had sufficient funds for the purpose. Accordingly, ejectment was sought also on the ground under Section 12 (l) (f) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the appellant by contending that the arrears were deposited in the court and that the need for non-residential purpose set up by the plaintiff, was fictitious. It was alleged that the rents for the period between October, 1979 to August 1980 (for 11 months) were deposited in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority and those for the months of September, 1980 to January, 1982 were tendered by money orders, but not accepted by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that after the date of his retirement, the plaintiff had let out one room to Dr. Ashok Mishra (P. W. 2) on 1-11-1980 on monthly rent of Rs. 70/- which was indicative of the fact that the need for non-residential purpose set up by him was a device to eject the defendant from the suit accommodation. The defence was rejected and the suit for ejectment on both the grounds under Section 12 (l) (a) and (f) of the Act was decreed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were challenged with no success in the lower appellate court. Hence this second appeal has been filed.

(3.) DURING pendency of this second appeal, the appellant filed I. A. No. 3746/91 on 6-5-1991, contending that during pendency of appeal the plaintiff constructed 3 new shops adjoining the suit accommodation, which were let out to M/s. Chawla Enterprises, Shrichand Dadumal and Shri Rajendra Singh Thakur for non-residential purposes in the year 1988 and accordingly his need for the suit accommodation stands negatived. In reply to this application filed on 17-7-1981, the plaintiff asserted hat he had no funds to construct the alleged shops on his land. The aforesaid persons offered to construct the shops at their cost which was accepted by the plaintiff. Accordingly, he had no alternative but to let out the newly built shops to the persons who had constructed them. Another application 1. A. No. 3747/91 was also filed on 6-5-1991 by the appellant for condoning the delay in payment of rents.