VINODILAL Vs. UPBHOKTA SAHKARI BHANDAR LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY a suit was filed by two of the landlords namely Vinodilal, the present appellant along with Kashi Bai. They are son and mother. Later on other landlords were also joined as proforma defendants No. 2 to 5. It was however stated that no relief is being claimed against them. It was stated in the plaint that the premises under the occupation of Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited, Guna (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') are bonafide required by the plaintiff-appellant. It was stated that these premises were previously owned by one Abir Chand. These were purchased by the present appellants on 3rd April, 1975. A notice of attornment was duly served on the aforesaid defendant. There is no dispute as to relationship of landlord and tenant.

(2.) THE suit for eviction was based on the ground that the plaintiff No. 1 intends to start his own business in the suit premises at Guna and for this purpose the suit premises are bonafide required by the plaintiffs. It was stated that no other suitable accommodation was available at Guna. This plea was naturally denied by the tenant.

(3.) THE argument raised by the appellant-landlord is that the suit premises are required for bonafide need and that he intends to start business in grains at Guna. It is stated that the shop is located at a crossing and commands a good location from business point of view. The decision went against the landlord because the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not made up his mind as to when he intends to start the business and that eviction cannot be ordered merely because business to be started is under contemplation. The fact that the requisite permission from the market committee was not obtained for starting the business of grains was taken note of.