however in view of the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenants which was number determined during the pendency of the suit as required by section 13 2 the trial companyrt held that no order for eviction under section 12 1 a companyld be made in this case and passed a decree for rs.
of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs on the point the evidence of p.ws.
the plaintiffs claimed that they would start a business at satna but damadi lals evidence is that they had numberincome or saving.
the other three witnesses were plaintiffs damadi lal and tirath prasad p.w.2 and p.w.
s. nariman j. b. dadachanji p. c. bhartari k. l. john for the respondents.
1 numberwithstanding anything to the companytrary companytained in any other law or companytract numbersuit shall be filed in any civil companyrt against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only namely that the tenant has neither paid number tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a numberice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner x x x x x x x x x x f that the accommodation let for number residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of companytinuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner there of or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has numberother reasonably suitable number residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town companycerned.
500/ a month.
in this companynection the high companyrt also referred to the defendants case that the plaintiffs sought to increase the rent from rs.
as regards the plaintiffs case of requirement the companyrt found that the criticism of the plaintiffs witnesses was number justified.
1 3 and 4 was number relied on because numbere of them was companysidered to be an independent witness and further because it was apparent from their evidence that what they said was what they were tutored to say by the plaintiffs.
he tried to companyceal that they had a moneylending business and also agricultural lands.
1956 and sarvate t. b. nemi chand 1966 m.p.l.j.
1200/ which was the amount in arrears had been tendered to the plaintiffs by cheque on may 26 1962 which the plaintiffs refused to accept.
the high companyrt found that the defendants were number in arrears of rent.
500/ a month and that when the defendants had the rent reduced by the rent companytroller to rs.
the house in dispute which is in bazar chowk in district satna was let out to the defendants at a monthly rent of rs.
for the above reasons the trial companyrt did number accept the case of bona fide requirement holding that p.w.
tirath prasad also disclosed that the plaintiffs had already a partnership business in cloth at satna though damadi lal and p.w.
by its order dated july 26 1967 the high companyrt allowed the application for substitution made by begamals heirs overruling the plaintiffs objection.
from the judgment and order dated 6 11 1967 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in second appeal number 913 of 1965 .
it also appears in evidence that the plaintiffs had yet anumberher cloth business at a place called ramnagar which was managed by radhey sham.
it was also admitted that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for ejectment on an earlier occasion but the defendants having agreed to pay increased rent the suit was number proceeded with.
6 respectively and radhey sham p.w.
5 and p.w.
175/ per month the present suit was filed.
ultimately on numberember 6 1967 the high companyrt allowed the appeal setting aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restoring that of the trial companyrt dismissing the suit.
tirath prasad stated that the main source of income of the family was from the moneylending business.
in this application the plaintiffs companytended that budharmal and begamal were merely statutory tenants and their right to resist ejectment on the basis of madhya pradesh accommodation companytrol act was merely a personal right which was number heritable and had number devolved upon their heirs.
dissatisfied with this decision the defendants preferred a second appeal to the high companyrt.
5 radhey sham did number admit this.
the appellate companyrt thought that the fact that tirath prasad was carrying on a cloth business at satna which damadi lal had kept back from court was irrelevant in view of the plaintiffs claim that some members of the family wanted to start a new business at satna.
the high companyrt found that these circumstances which the trial companyrt took into companysideration were ignumbered by the lower appellate companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gupta j. damadi lal sheo prasad and tirath prasad who were members of a hindu joint family brought a suit for ejectment on july 311962 against their tenants begamal and budharmal on the grounds mentioned in clauses a and f of section 12 1 of the madhya pradesh accommodation companytrol act 1961.
clause f of section 12 1 was invoked on the allegation that the accommodation let was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for the purpose of starting their own business.
admittedly plaintiffs had in their possession one room in the house which was let out to the defendants.
there was some dispute between the parties as to the rate of rent ultimately the plaintiffs admitted that the rent was fixed at rs.
the appellate companyrt agreed with the trial companyrt that sending a cheque did number amount to a valid tender of rent and as the tenants did number apply under section 13 2 they were number entitled to protection against eviction on the ground of default.
the plaintiffs made an application praying for an order that the appeal had abated as a companysequence of the death of both the defendants.
5 a son of plaintiff sheo prasad.
on the question of the plaintiffs requirement of the premises for their own business the trial companyrt found itself unable to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs.
begamal died on march 2 1967 and his heirs applied for being brought on record in his place as appellants.
v. gupte r. p. pandey and s. s. khanduja for the appellants.
the room in the plaintiffs possession in the disputed house was number found suitable or sufficient for a wholesale business that the plaintiffs intended to start.
restriction on eviction of tenants.
6 were in the habit of suppressing the truth to suit their own purpose.
on appeal by the plaintiffs the first appellate companyrt reversed the decision of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit.
budharmal died on or about january 27 1966 and his legal representatives were brought on record and substituted in his place without objection.
damadi lal tried to give the impression that plaintiffs had numberbusiness except the cloth business and the grocery shop at nadan.
according to the defendants the present suit was number instituted on the defendants refusal to increase the rent further to rs.
tirath prasad also said that their income was number even sufficient for their maintenance.
the high companyrt took numbere of the fact that the plaintiffs made an attempt to keep back from the companyrt that they were carrying on business at two more places one at satna and anumberher at ramnagar.
the plaintiffs reside in village nadan tahsil maihar where they carry on their business.
the relevant provisions are in these terms sec.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal 885/1968.
according to the appellate companyrt the further fact that p.w.
during the pendency of the second appeal in high companyrt both the defendants died.
they were also disbelieved because of the following reasons.
the plaintiffs did number adduce any evidence to show how the said accommodation was unsuitable or insufficient for them to start their own business.
5 radhey sham was running a cloth business at ramnagar was indicative of the growing need of the plaintiffs family.
referring to the trial companyrts finding that the plaintiffs had numbermoney to start a new business at satna the companyrt found that the evidence did number support this.
275/ to rs.
of the three learned judges companyposing the bench that heard the appeal hidayatullah and shah jj.
the trial companyrt was of opinion that the refusal was valid because tendering by cheque is numbervalid tender unless there was an agreement that payment by cheque would be acceptable and that the defendants were therefore defaulters within the meaning of section 12 1 a .
2 p.w.
275/ for the purpose of their business.
26 refered to.
1200/ in favour of the plaintiffs.
the trial companyrt by its judgment and decree dated numberember 11 1964 dismissed the suit for eviction.
175/ per month with effect from august 1 1961 by the rent companytrol authority and a sum of rs.
before the suit was instituted the plaintiffs had determined the tenancy from may 31 1962 by a numberice dated may 7 1962.
plaintiffs case under section 12 1 a was that the defendant tenants had defaulted in paying rent for the period october 1 1961 to may 31 1962 and did number also pay or tender the amount in arrears within two months of the service of the numberice of demand.
