SAKHARAM Vs. VIJAY KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant against r dated 17-4-2000 of the III Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna in Civil Suit No. 188-A of 1999 (instituted in the year 1984), by which his application under Section 151, CPC stating therein that the suit has abated has been rejected.

(2.) THE suit for eviction was instituted in the year 1984 by plaintiffs Gulabchand and his son Anand Kumar. The eviction has been claimed under Section 12 (1) (c), (f), (i) and (k) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as per allegations in the plaint. The suit accommodation is shop No. 3 of house No. 396, Ward No. 15, Satna. so far as the ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act is concerned it was pleaded that plaintiff No. 2 Anand Kumar was running the business of printing press in Shop No. 2 and the space in that shop is not sufficient and therefore he bonafide requires the adjacent shop No. 3 in occupation of the defendant for his business. Anand Kumar died and his legal representatives have been brought on record in the year 1997 and the plaint has been amended and it has been pleaded that now Smt. Anjana Jain, widow of Anand Kumar Jain is carrying on the business of the printing press and requires the suit shop for that business so that she may earn her livelihood for herself and for her two children who are minors and who have also been impleaded as the legal representatives of their father.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the defendant in this revision that the suit has abated and the decision of this Court in Narayandas v. Smt. Shakuntala, 1998 (II) MPJR 323, has been cited in support of this argument. This argument is not acceptable. The suit is not only under Section 12 (1) (f) but under other Sub-sections of Section 12 (1) and, therefore, the suit as a whole cannot abate. It does not abate even in respect of the ground under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. As pleaded in the plaint plaintiff No. 2 Anand Kumar Jain was already running the business of printing press in shop No. 2 and he required the suit shop for this business as the space in shop No. 2 was not sufficient. Now after his death his business has been taken over by his widow and she is carrying on the business for herself and for her sons. This was not the fact situation in the case of Narayandas (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the defendant and therefore that case is distinguishable on facts. In the present case the cause of action survives and the widow can establish her need for the suit accommodation for here existing business left by her husband. She need not be driven to file a separate suit for that purpose In the case of Narayandas (supra) the shop was needed for starting new business and not for the existing business left by the deceased plaintiff.