Rameshchandra vs Ramnarayan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7093 MP

                             IN THE          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                 PRADESH
                                                AT I N D O R E
                                                      BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

                                            ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2023



                                        SECOND APPEAL No. 2137 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAMESHCHANDRA S/O LATE DEVILALJI,
                          AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          LAUNDRY NEAR SHRINATHJI TEMPLE, RAM
                          MANOHAR LOHIYA MARG, SHUJALPUR
                          MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)
                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                          (SHRI PIYUSH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          RAMNARAYAN S/O KUNWARLAL PARMER,
                          AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          AGRICULTURE MAHATMA GANDHI MARG
                          SHUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI VINAY GANDHI,ADVOCATE)
                                This appeal coming on for judgment this day, the court

                          passed the following:

                                                    JUDGMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Civil Appeal No. RCA.No.12/2018 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class I, Shujalpur District Shajapur in C.O.S.No.17/A/2016, whereby the suit was dismissed.

In brief, facts of the case are that a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent/plaintiff Ramnarayan against the appellant/defendant Ramesh Chandra on the ground for non- payment of rent as provided under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act of 1961") and under Section 12 (1)(h) Act of 1961 bonafide requirement of the accommodation for the purpose of reconstruction. The aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant and the learned judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence has non-suited the plaintiff against which a Regular Civil Appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of third District Judge, Shujalpur District Shajapur, who vide its judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 has partly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court so far as it relates to the ground available to the respondent/plaintiff under Section 12 (1)(h) Act of 1961 is concerned and the decree under Section 12(1)(a) Act of 1961, has been affirmed.

The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that his house is situated at cross section of Luhiya Marg and Ramchandra Choubey marg of Shiyalpur Mandi in which the appellant/defendant was also Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM carrying out his business of laundry out of the said house, a portion admeasuring 77/61 Ft., was reconstructed and has already been on rent to the State Bank of India in the year 1989.

It is further case of the plaintiff that when the part of the house was given on rent to the State Bank of India, at that time the defendant was also requested to vacate his portion and was given a separate accommodation in the present house on three Rupees per month rent admeasuring 12X12 foot. It is further case of the plaintiff that when the defendant vacated the old portion of his house at that time an agreement was also executed between them on 21.05.1990 or around that date the original of which is with the defendant and copy of which was given to the plaintiff and as per this agreement it was agreed that in the new construction, the plaintiff shall give premises to the defendant its rent would be Rs.100/- per month. It is further case of the plaintiff that building pertinent to the State Bank of India's new building is in a dilapidated condition. The plaintiff seeks to reconstruct the same, according to his needs and otherwise also most of house has become ramshackled which cannot be re-constructed without the defendant being vacated.

It is also stated that the plaintiff has enough financial resources for construction of the house. The plaint has been traversed by the defendant denying all the averments averred therein. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had entered into false agreement with the defendant and got his earlier house vacated from him without providing him accommodation in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM the building as in agreement it was also stated that if the plaintiff fails to provide him shop admeasuring 12 X 12 foot then he shall not be entitled to get the premises vacated from him. The plaintiff has been non-suited as the aforesaid and learned judge of the District Court has reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court.

Counsel appearing for the appellant Shri Piyush Shrivastava, has vehemently argued before this Court and it is contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on the ground, that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case positively as no plan has been submitted by the plaintiff of the proposed construction. It is also submitted that under Section 12(7) of the Act of 1961 has not been satisfied which has vitiated the decree. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is also stopped from raising the ground of eviction under Section 12(1) (h) of the Act of 1961 as in the agreement dated 21.06.1990 the plaintiff was required to give defendant a shop in the existing new building admeasuring 12/12 Sq.ft.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned District Appellate Court in reversing the decree as the plaintiff has proved its case under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that the plaintiff would be bound by the decree and would provide the accommodation to the defendant as directed by District Appellant Court as no prejudice would be caused to the defendant.

On due consideration and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has filed his bank statement to demonstrate Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM that he has resources to raise the construction. It is also found that the State Bank of India is also tenant of the plaintiff and plaintiff is receiving a rent of Rs.50,000./- per month and document is proved as Ex-P-8. It is also found vide Ex-P-17, the house plan has also been filed by the plaintiff on record, clearly providing the space for the defendant's floor, and the estimate of construction is also filed as Ex-P-18. In such circumstances, so far as non-compliance under Section 12 (7) is concerned, the aforesaid ground is not available to the defendant considering the fact that the plaintiff when he filed the suit was aged 85 years and at present he must be around 91 years and required to the property for reconstruction, this Court is of the considered opinion that that even if earlier the defendant was not given the accommodation in the earlier reconstructed building but it was also true that he was given accommodation in the present suit house. It cannot be said that the plaintiff stopped to reconstruct the building for all the time to come specially when the building itself is in a dilapidated condition.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned judge of the District Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has passed the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(h) of the Act of 1961 which needs no interference accordingly, the appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed.

Needless to say, the plaintiff shall comply with the decree with its letter and spirit and shall provide accommodation to the defendant as directed therein.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court.

Appeal stands dismissed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE DAS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 09-May-23 2:14:56 PM