Nuruddin & Another vs Ravindra Singh

The appellants/defendants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 30.8.2018 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Mandsaur whereby the suit filed by respondent/defendant has been decree u/s. 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961") and judgment dated 16.8.2019 whereby 3rd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur has dismissed the first appeal preferred by them.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

(i) The respondent being the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the appellants/defendants from shop No.4, Narang Complex, Kalidas Marg, Mandsaur (hereinafter referred to as "the suit shop"); for recovery of rent for the month of June, 2013; and mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per month.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, defendants were inducted as tenant in the suit shop at the rent of Rs.125/- per month. A rent-note was executed on 1.7.1978 and since then they are in possession of the suit shop. They are real brothers and engaged in the business of watches in the name and style as "Free India Watch Services" in the suit shop. At present, the rent for the suit shop is Rs.1,010/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have paid the rent on 15.6.2013 for the May, 2013 and now the suit shop is required bona fide by him for his son Ravijot Singh who has completed his education and wants to start the business of auto-spare parts in the suit shop. The plaintiff has no other suitable accommodation in the city of Mandsaur for his son. The plaintiff fairly disclosed that shop No.20 owned by him but it is located in inside the Complex and not suitable for the business of auto-spare parts. In future, he will use the said shop for godown purposes as the area of the suit shop is only 9 x 14 Sq.ft.

(iii) The defendants appeared and filed the written statement refuting the averments made in the plaint, but admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. They took a defence that the plaintiff is in possession of shop No.20 which can be used for the business of his son. Learned trial Court framed six issues for adjudication. Both the parties examined their witnesses and exhibited the documents. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence came on record, has decreed the suit by directing the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit to the plaintiff expiry of period of two months from the date of the decree and also to pay the mesne profit along with rent of Rs.1,010/- for the month of June, 2013.

(iv) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants filed first appeal and that too has been dismissed vide judgment dated 16.8.2019, hence the present second appeal before this Court.

Shri R.L. Patidar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, has argued this appeal at length, but failed to explain that any question of law is involved in this appeal. Finally, he submitted that the appellants be given three years' time to vacate the suit shop as they are tenants since 1978 or they may be accommodated in some other shop like shop No.20.

On the other hand, Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, submitted that the plaintiff has permitted the appellants to continue as tenants since 1978, but now the suit shop is required to start the business for his young son, therefore, he filed the suit. The suit is pending since 2013 and the defendants had sufficient time to search for the suitable accommodation for their business. Shop No.20 is required for the purposes of godown as lot of space would be required for the business of auto-spare part. The suit shop is only having area of 9 x 14 Sq.ft. which is not sufficient to store all the auto-spare parts. He submits that at the most three months' time may be granted to the defendants to vacate the suit shop as the suit is pending since last so many years.

Both the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding in respect to bona fide need of the plaintiff and the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff is having suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Mandsaur. Shop No.20 is inside the complex and not suitable for the business of auto-spare parts. The plaintiff is the best judge to decide the suitability of the shop. The defendants or the court cannot direct the plaintiff to use particular shop or accommodation for his business. Hence, I do not find any ground to grant three years' time to the respondents/defendants to vacate the suit shop. As the suit is pending since 2013 and during pendency of the suit and appeal, the defendants did not come with offer with compromise, therefore, at this stage three years' time to vacate the suit shop cannot be granted. Since they are senior citizens and tenants since 1978, therefore, six months' time would be sufficient granted to them to vacate the suit shop and handingover the possession subject to following conditions :

(i) The defendants shall comply with the money part of the decree within four weeks from today;

(ii) The defendants shall pay the rent of the suit shop by 10th of each month i.e. from March, 2020 to August, 2020 regularly; and

(iii) The defendants shall file a written undertaking before the trial Court that they shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff on or before 31st August, 2020.

In case of failure to comply with condition No. (I) & (iii), the plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed.