R.K. Varma, J.
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1988 passed by the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/86 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14-8-86 passed by the Civil Judge Class, 1, Khachrod in Civil Suit No. I77-A/85 (Old No. 163-A/ 83 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the quarter occupied by him.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
It is undisputed that the plaintiff is a registered Company at Birlagram, Nagda. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was in the employment of the Company and was allotted one quarter No. D-25 as an employee of the Company on a rent of Rs. 5/-per month which was being deducted from his monthly salary. On 25-6-82 the plaintiff Company terminated the services of the defendant and the defendant was asked to vacate the quarter. The plaintiff Company requires the quarter for its employees. The defendant was in arrears of rent up to 12-6-1983 and was liable to pay mesne profits of Rs. 117/-. The plaintiff filed the instant suit for vacant possession of the said quarter and arrears of rent and mesne profits.
3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations in his written statement and stated that the quarter was not let to the defendant on rent and that the plaintiff Company was not the owner of the disputed quarter. It was also denied that the plaintiff Company required the said quarter. The termination of the defendant's services was also disputed and it was alleged by the defendant that the defendant's case against termination of his services is pending in the Labour Court and until disposal of that case the plaintiff Company was not entitled to get possession of the quarter occupied by the defendant.
4. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found that the defendant was the plaintiffs tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/ - per month in respect of the quarter occupied by him and that the quarter was let to the plaintiff by the Company because he was in employment of the Company. It was also found by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff Company required bona fide the disputed quarter in question for the residence of its other employees. The learned Trial Court further found that it was not proved that there was any case of the defendant pending in the Labour Court against his termination or that due to pendency of the case, the plaintiff was not entitled to get the quarter vacated. On these findings the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court the defendant filed an appeal before the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain.
5. In appeal filed by the defendant the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree. The learned lower appellate Court also found that the defendant has failed to prove that there was any case pending in the Labour Court against removal of the defendant from the service of the plaintiff Company. It was also held that the plaintiff Company has become entitled to get possession of the quarter under the Special provision contained in Section 20 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act as also under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, the defendant has filed this second appeal.
6. The appellant who appeared personally in this Court has submitted that the case against termination of his services is still pending in the labour Court and, therefore, he is entitled for stay of delivery of possession of the quarter occupied by him.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Company has in reply submitted that nothing would turn on the pendency of the case against termination of the defendant in the Labour Court even if it were assumed that such a case is still pending. A certified copy of the proceeding of the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 18-1-89 in the case of the appellant against the respondent Company, has been filed by the Company's counsel, in this Court to show that on account of the absence of the appellant his petition is dismissed. But for the purpose of this appeal learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he would proceed on the basis that the appellant's case against his termination is still pending in the Labour Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the learned Courts below have found that the suit quarter was let to the defendant for use as residence as an employee of the Company. It has also been found by the Courts below that the appellant-defendant's services have been terminated by the Company and that the suit quarter is required for the use of other employees of the Company. These findings are findings of fact based on evidence and are as such not liable to interference in this Second Appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that on the aforesaid findings the respondent Company is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit quarter under Section 20(a) of the Accommodation Control Act. A decision of this Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. Birlagram, Nagda v. Tejnath, 1989 MPRCJ 91 : (AIR 1989 Madh Pra 205) has been cited-by the learned counsel in support of his submission aforesaid. Section 20(a) of the Act reads as under:-
"20. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases.-
(a) that the tenant to whom such accommodation were let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; or .................................."
8. On the facts found by the learned courts below the respondent Company is the landlord in respect of the quarter let to the appellant as an employee and that the appellant has ceased to be an employee of the Company on account of his termination and that the quarter in question is required by the Company for the use of its other employees. In these circumstances Section 20(a) of the Act squarely applies and the respondent Company is entitled to vacant possession of the quarter by evicting the appellant from the quarter in his occupation. The submission of the appellant that his eviction be stayed on account of the pendency of the appellant's case against the termination of his service apparently has reference to Section 12(8) of the Act which reads thus ;-
" 12 (8). No order for the eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (j) of Sub-section (1), if any dispute as to whether the tenant has ceased to be in the service or employment of the landlord is pending before any authority competent to decide such dispute."
xx xx xx xx
Section 12(8) of the Act has its operation on the ground specified in Clause (j) of Section 12 (1) of the Act. But in the instant case, the respondent Company has not filed the suit on the ground of Section 12(1)(j). The plaintiff Company has invoked the provisions of Section I2(l)(e) and Section 20(a) of the Act and has succeeded in proving the facts required to be proved under those sections for recovery of the suit accommodation.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that apart from the fact that the appellant's services were terminated by the Company in the year 1982, even if his services had not been terminated, he could not have continued in the services of the company today, since he has already crossed the age of superannuation in 1987. He was born in the year 1929, as per the declaration made by him at the time he became a member of provident fund. An affidavit in this behalf has been filed by the Labour Officer of respondent Company in this Court and there is no counter-affidavit filed by the appellant in this regard. The appellant's prayer for staying the delivery of possession of the quarter occupied by him is firmly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent Company also on the ground of the appellant having crossed the age of superannuation apart from the merits of the case.
10. In view of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal against eviction, which deserves to be dismissed. However, since the appellant has been continued to stay in the suit quarter under the stay orders of the Court, it would not be just and proper that he should be charged mesne profits @ Rs. 150/-per month for the entire period. Accordingly, while affirming the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, as regards eviction of the appellant from the suit quarter, the decree as regards mesne profits shall stand modified to the extent that for the period the possession of the appellant was protected by the stay orders of the Courts below and this Court, the appellant shall be charged mesne profit @ Rs.5/- per month and not @ Rs. 150/- per month as has been decreed by the learned Courts below.
11. With the modification as aforesaid this appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.