Rajendar Kumar vs M/S Zhabua Motors Transport Company

Pranay Verma, J

This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendant/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2023 passed in RCA No.53-A/22 by the Second Additional District Judge, Jhabua whereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.38-A/2022 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhabua, District Jhabua the claim of plaintiff/respondent has been decreed on grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(a)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

As per the plaintiff, it had let out the suit premises to defendant on 16.01.2007 by way of a written agreement for non-residential purpose at Rs.2,000/- per month with stipulation of increase in rent at 5% per year. The defendant has always been irregular in the matter of payment of monthly rent and has always paid the same belatedly. Up to 05.02.2019 he was in arrears of rent of Rs.80,076/- which he failed to tender despite issuance of notice dated 19.09.2019 to him in that regard. A subsequent notice dated 23.02.2021 by plaintiff to defendant also suffered the same fact. It was further submitted that the suit premises are bona fide required by plaintiff for the purpose of commencing transport business and that it has no other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of its own in the town.

The defendant contested the claim by filing his written statement submitting that he has never been in any arrears of rent. He has paid the same along with reply notice dated 26.02.2021. The suit premises are not bona fide required by plaintiff for the purpose of commencing its business. After letting out the suit premises to defendant the plaintiff has let out premises to Bank of Baroda and for ATM to ICICI Bank. The plaintiff is involved in the business of silver finance. He has shops at Ranapur, Indore also and is having a huge business of transportation of trucks. It was hence submitted that the suit be dismissed.

The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim upon recording finding to the effect that plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent despite issuance of notice to him in that regard as contended by plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not proved that the suit premises are bona fide required by it for the purpose of commencing transport business and that it has no other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of its own in the town.

In appeal having been preferred by plaintiff, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside by the lower appellate Court by holding that plaintiff has proved that the defendant has failed to tender or deposit the arrears of rent as per the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13(1) of the Act, 1961. It has further held that plaintiff has proved that the suit premises are bona fide required by it for the purpose of commencing transport business and that it is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of its own in the town. In consequence the plaintiff's claim has been decreed.

Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court on both the grounds on which plaintiff's claim for eviction has been decreed i.e. 12(1(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961. The correctness of the finding as regards bona fide need of the plaintiff deserves to be considered first. In the plaint the plaintiff categorically pleaded that the suit premises are bona fide required by it for the purpose of its business and that it has no other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. The plaintiff firm was earlier carrying out transport business at 87/2, Sardar Patel Marg, Rajgarh Naka, Jhabua in a rented premises which have been got vacated by its landlord on 01.09.2019. The suit premises are most suitable and convenient for its business. The defendant in his written statement pleaded letting out of other premises by plaintiff subsequent to the suit premises let out to him. He also pleaded that plaintiff is carrying out the business of silver finance and has six shops at Ranapur, Indore. It was pleaded that plaintiff is having business at numerous places and does not require the suit premises.

In his examination-in-chief, the proprietor of plaintiff firm reaffirmed the bona fide need. In his cross-examination he stated that when he had got the house reconstructed a part of the same had been given out to Bank of Baroda. He affirmed that he has no other alternate accommodation for the purpose of his business. Though he has further admitted that a part of the house was got vacated from ICICI Bank and a business of finance was started therein but the same was much prior to arising of need for the suit premises as is evident from the statements of both the parties. Moreover, there is no material on record to suggest the size and the location of the aforesaid premises and as to whether the same would be suitable for the purpose of plaintiff's business.

In his deposition the defendant has not given any particulars as regards the premises which have been got vacated by plaintiff subsequent to letting out of the suit premises to him. He has failed to adduce any evidence to show that subsequent to need for carrying out business from the suit premises having arisen to plaintiff, it has got vacated any other premises and has let out the same to any new tenant. As per plaintiff, the need for the suit premises arose to it on 01.09.2019 when its tenanted shop was got vacated by its landlord. Even if the fact of vacating of premises by ICICI Bank is considered, then as per statement of plaintiff and defendant the same was much prior to arising of need of plaintiff for the suit premises. Thus, even if any other premises had been got vacated by plaintiff prior to need for the suit premises having arisen, the same cannot in any manner be termed to be mala fide. There is no evidence whatsoever available on record to suggest that plaintiff is possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate and vacant accommodation of its own anywhere else in the town. The lower appellate Court has hence rightly set aside the finding recorded by the trial Court and has rightly decreed the claim of plaintiff under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961.

Since the decree passed by the lower appellate Court on ground under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Act, 1961 has been found to be well merited, I do not deem it necessary to dwell into the contentions as raised by defendant as regards the decree having been passed against him under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, 1961 as it is well settled that even if an eviction decree is affirmed on any one of the ground, the same would be sustained even if the same is not found substantiated on any other ground. Thus, even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the decree passed by the lower appellate Court on ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, 1961 is erroneous, then also the ultimate decision would not in any manner be affected as the eviction decree would still be maintained under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961.

Thus as a result of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the lower appellate Court has committed any error in setting aside the finding recorded by the trial Court and decreeing the claim of plaintiff on ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The finding and the reasoning given by it are in perfect consonance with the material available on record and application of legal principles applicable to the facts of the case. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is consequently dismissed in limine.