Full Judgment
S.A.No.235/2013 15/01//2014 Shri Lal Gyanendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent.
This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the decree for eviction granted by the fiRs.appellate court reversing the findings given by the trial court.
Respondent/plaintiff was the land lord and the appellant/defendant is a tenant in the suit premises.
The suit in question was filed for eviction on the ground contemplated under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(h) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act,1961.
Even though the trial court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish non compliance with the provisions pertaining to payment of rent and default by the plaintiff.
When the matter was examined by the fiRs.appellate court, the fiRs.appellate court took note of the statement and admission made by the defendant, the present appellant i.e.defendant Idrish Khan examined as DW-1, it is found found that he admits receipt of notice from the court and none deposit of the rent, inspite receipt of notice and even during the pendecy of the matter finding that the ingredients necessary for complying with section 12(1)(a) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act has not been complied with and based on the statements made by the defendant , the suit has been decreed by the fiRs.appellate court.
Even though Shri Lal Gyanendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant tried to emphasize that the finding recorded by the fiRs.appellate court is contrary to law.
Shri R.P.Khare, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the aforesaid.
I have gone through the judgment passed by the fiRs.appellate court and the fiRs.appellate court from para-9 onwards has taken note of statement of DW-1 the appellant himself and has found that the appellant admits that after receipt of notice from the landlord, rent was not deposited, he also admits about non deposit of rent during the pendency of the matter before the court.
Taking note of various facts made in the statement of DW-1 the suit has been decreed .
The findings recorded by the fiRs.appellate court is purely on due appreciation of the evidence available on record and in doing so, no error has been committed by the fiRs.appellate court nor any substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal under section 100 CPC.
Accordingly no case is made out for interference into the matter.
However the appellant is granted 6 months time for vacating suit premises on the following terms and conditions: (i) The appellant shall deposit the rent in accordance to the rent agreement by 15th of every month.
(ii) All arrears of rent as determined by the court below shall be paid by the appellant within 3 months from today and in default complying with the aforesaid conditions, the respondent shall be entitled to seek eviction by the execution of the decree.
Finding no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp