Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The defendant, by filing a reply to the averments made in the plaint, took a stand that for the last 50 years they have been running the business over the said land and the plaintiff stopped accepting the rent from the defendant and have increased the monthly rent from Rs.1000 per month to Rs.5000 per month. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has no bonafide need as has been claimed but the premises has to be leased out to some other person and, therefore, eviction is sought. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has other vacant land which can be used by them to fulfill their bonafide need and as such, he has denied the need of the plaintiff.

5. Parties adduced their evidence and finally the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2015. As per the issues framed by the trial Court, the trial Court has given the finding in favour of the plaintiff in respect of two issues- first is of the arrears of rent not paid by the defendant w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and second in respect of the bonafide need. The trial Court has given the finding that the Trust bonafidely needs the disputed land because they have no sufficient place to organize the social and religious functions in their temple.

6. An appeal was preferred by the defendant/appellant challenging the judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. stating therein that the written statement is required to be amended to the extent that the plaintiff has not filed any suit against other tenants and intentionally choose the defendant. An amendment is also sought to the extent that one pond was levelled by the plaintiff and also leased out. As such, it is clear that the bonafide need as shown by the plaintiff could have been fulfilled by the levelled pond but deliberately eviction of the defendant is being sought, although the plaintiff has no bonafide need for the suit land. An application under Order 6 Rule 9 of CPC has also been filed for appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the said fact regarding levelling of the pond which is measuring two acres and after that the same was leased out but those applications have also been rejected by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has reiterated the same facts as has been mentioned by the trial Court and also approved the finding given by the trial Court. The Appellate Court has observed that the plaintiff is a Trust and the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accommodation Control Act') are not applicable. The eviction of the defendant is governed with the provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act and after terminating the tenancy by giving valid notice under Section 106, the tenancy is terminated and as such, the plaintiff is not required to show the bonafide need.

"Now, under the Transfer of Property Act no ground of eviction of tenant has to be made out once a contractual tenancy is put to end by service of valid notice under Section 106. Once such a notice is served it is open to the lessor to enforce his right of recovery of possession of property."

10. Thus, in my opinion both the Courts below have not committed any illegality granting decree in favour of the plaintiff despite considering the fact that they have other surplus land available or not. The validity of notice of Section 106 of the T.P. Act is not under challenge. As per the application of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and even the statement of DW-3, it is not clear and specific that the plaintiff's Trust has acquired the vacant land during the pendency of the suit. Nowhere it is disclosed and made specific as to when the pond admeasuring area two acres has been levelled and where it is situated and whether that pond is suitable for fulfilling the bonafide need of the plaintiff or not. In absence of any specific allegations and even considering the fact that it is not a case under the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act, the plaintiff is not required to prove the bonafide need strictly in the sense as is required to be proved under the provisions of T.P. Act. Thus, I do not find that the appeal involves any substantial questions of law for consideration.