Sharma. J. - (1.) The appellant is in possession of a shop in a town in Madhyd Pradesh a Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent who filed a suit out of which the present appeal arises for his eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court in second appeal has reversed the decision and passed a decree.
(2.) The case is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and S. 12(1)(f) deals with the ground of landlord's bona fide necessity with reference to buldings let out for non-residential purposes, in the following words:- "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) ........................... (f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned: (g)...................."
(3.) The plaintiff claims that he requires the shop personally for starting a business and it is rightly contended by Mr. Kacker, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that it is essential for him to establish that he is the owner of the premises. A perusal of the language of the cl. (f) and a comparison thereof with that in the other clauses clearly leads to this conclusion. The issue in the case is whether the plaintiff, respondent before us, has been able to establish this condition.;