DAYAL DAS Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's/defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2003 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/2002, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2002 passed by learned Second Civil Judge, Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No. 11 -A/1998 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent has been affirmed.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal lie in narrow compass. Suffice it is to say that the plaintiff/respondent on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant filed a suit for eviction against defendant/appellant on the ground envisaged under Section 12(1) (c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act").

(3.) The appellants are the L.Rs. of defendant/tenant who had died during the pendency of this second appeal. In brief the case of plaintiff is that he is the landlord of the tenanted premises which is non-residential and he gave the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- shown in the map annexed with the plaint, to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, no rent is due upon the tenant/defendant. The suit accommodation is required by plaintiff for himself and for his two major sons who after graduation are sitting idle and are not serving anywhere. The need of plaintiff is bonafide and he is not having any reasonably suitable non-residential vacant accommodation of his own in the town in which he along with his two major sons could start the business of Seeds and Fertilisers and the suit premises is a suitable place to carry on such type of business because nearby the suit premises there are several other shops of Seeds and Fertilisers. The tenant/defendant is quite aware about the bonafide need of the landlord/plaintiff and he also gave assurance that he would vacate the suit premises on 1-4-1997, but. despite the assurance given by him, he has not vacated it nor delivered its possession to the plaintiff. Hence, a decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need as envisaged under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act was originally sought by the plaintiff at the time of the filing of the suit.