PURSHOTTAM SHRIVAS Vs. BHAGWANDAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. The substantial question of law which was formulated at the time of admission of this appeal by the order dated 20.08.2008 is as follows.

(2.) The facts shorn off unnecessary details are that initially the suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and mesne profit against the defendant was filed by Smt. Bhawari Bai alleging the bonafide requirement of her grand son Vinay. It was alleged that the cause of action accrued on 14.01.2000, when despite receipt of registered notice dated 27.12.1999, defendant failed to vacate the premises. After the death of Smt. Bhawari Bai on 17.07.2001, present plaintiffs were brought on record as her legal heirs. Vinay is the son of plaintiff No.2. By an amendment, it was incorporated in the pleadings that plaintiff No.2's son Vinay is unemployed and desirous of opening a 'Kirana Shop' in the suit premises and no other suitable non- residential accommodation is available for this purpose.

(3.) Defendant in his written statement has refuted the claim of plaintiffs on the ground that Vinay was minor and a High School student and under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act, the eviction can only be for the requirement of major son. It was further contended that plaintiff has three vacant shops available to him. Two in the building at Ghodanakkash and one in the building No.38 at Hanumanganj, Jumerati.