R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The tenant is in appeal by special leave, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, maintained by the High Court, directing the tenant to be evicted from the suit accommodation, which is a shop, on the ground available under Cls. (c) and (h) of sub-section (1) of S. 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter, the Act, for short).
(2.)The facts, relevant and not in dispute at this stage, are that the property of which the suit accommodation is a part was owned by late Khetsidas who inducted the defendant as a tenant. Khetsidas died issuless. However, he had adopted Prahlad Rai as a son. He had also executed a registered deed of Will bequeathing his property to Prahlad Rai. Prahlad Rai has two sons, namely, Prem Prakash and Pawan Kumar. Prahlad Rai and his two sons have constituted a partnership which is registered as firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash.
(3.)The firm claiming itself to be the owner of the suit premises filed suit for ejectment of the tenant-defendant on two grounds, firstly, that the accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for the purpose of continuing their own business, and secondly, that the accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiffs for the purpose of rebuilding which could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. In the written statement, while contesting the claim of the plaintiff's for eviction, the defendant-tenant pleader inter alia that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit premises and, therefore, the tenant was not liable to be evicted though in that very written statement, at other places, the defendant admitted the plaintiffs as his landlords, also having paid rent to the plaintiffs after the death of Khetsidas, and also having initiated proceedings for fixing standard rent of the premises in which proceedings the tenant had impleaded the plaintiff-firm as opposite party alleging the firm to be the landlord of the suit accommodation.