Kailash Chand Gupta vs Shankar Lal Goyal

Subhash Samvatsar, J.

This appeal is filed by the tenant challenging judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below, whereby the plaintiffs suit for ejectment u/s 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the ''Act'') is decreed.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit for ejectment against the present appellant on various grounds including the ground of Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. As regards the ground u/s 12 (1) (f) of the Act it is alleged that the plaintiff is unemployed. He is at present residing at Gaziabad (U.P.). He owns his house in Shivpuri. The said house consists of 3 shops, out of which one is in possession of the present appellant, the other is in possession of Punjab Cycle Stores and the third in possession of Ashok Kirana Stores. Plaintiff in the plaint itself has alleged that he requires all the three shops for starting his grain business, and for that purpose he has filed three separate suits for ejectment. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.

The appellant during pendency of this appeal has filed an application under O.6 R.17 CPC and 0.41 R. 27 CPC alleging that one of the shops which was in possession of Ashok Kirana Stores has fallen vacant on 23.12.2002 and till today the plaintiff has not started his business. He also contended that the third suit filed against Punjab Cycle Stores is still pending in the trial Court and it is not likely that the said suit will be decided soon. Considering these facts learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has no present need of the suit premises.

After perusing the pleadings, I find that the plaintiff has approached the Court with a case that he requires all the three shops for starting his business. In such circumstances, the mere fact that one of the shops has fallen vacant during pendency of the suit against the present appellant, will not disentitle the plaintiff from getting a decree for ejectment against the present appellant. Similarly, the pendency of the third suit will also not demolish the need of the plaintiff because the disposal of that suit is not in the hands of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

As regards the present need of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff does not start his business within two years from the date of vacation of the suit premises, then the appellant shall be free to submit an application before the trial Court and in that event the trial Court shall decide the application in accordance with law.

At this stage, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant, prays for reasonable time for vacating the suit premises. Considering the fact that the appellant is carrying on business in the suit premises which is situated in the district place of Shivpuri, I deem it fit to grant one year''s time to the appellant to vacant the suit premises. Hence it is directed that the impugned decree shall be executable only after 1st March 2006 subject to furnishing an undertaking by the appellant within one month from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff/landlord on or before 28th February 2006, he will not sub-let or part with possession of the suit premises, he will not cause any damage to the suit premises, he will deposit the entire arrears of rent and costs within one month from today and will continue to deposit monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. If any of the conditions is not complied with, the respondent shall be free to execute the decree even earlier. No order as to costs of this appeal.