MAHAVIR PRASAD Vs. HARINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff/landlord whose suit on the ground of bona fide need as envisaged under j section 12(l)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, the "Act"), has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by allowing the appeal of the respondent/tenant.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction on the grounds envisaged in clauses (a) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act against the respondent/tenant. So far as pleading of the plaintiff of bona fide requirement is concerned, it has been pleaded by him that the suit accommodation is bona fidely required by him to carry on his business after getting the suit shop as well as other adjoining shops given to other, tenants evicted, and he is not having any vacant non-residential accommodation of his own in his possession within the municipal limits of Gwalior.

(3.) The defendant, by filing the written statement refuted this ground and further submitted that at present, the plaintiff is carrying on business in a shop owned by his brother-in-law (wife's brother), and therefore, the need of the plaintiff is not bona fide. Hence, it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed.