BHAGWANDAS AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. DURGA PRASAD ROHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal filed under Sec. 100 C.P.C. after losing the battle in both the innings in the Courts below.

(2.) The appellants brought an act for respondent's eviction from the suit premises on various grounds under Sec. 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') but ultimately the decree for eviction was passed on the ground of Sec. 12(l)(f) of the Act, i.e. the suit accommodation is required bonafide by the landlords for starting their business.

(3.) The facts leading to this appeal are as under. Initially the suit was filed under Sec. 12(e), (f) and (h) of the Act. The case of the appellants is that the suit house along with many others was the joint property of the firm 'Shrikrishna Purshottamdas' in which all the brothers viz. Shrikrishna, Purshottamdas, Madanlal, Bhagwandas and Radheyshyam were the partners. Partition of family property had taken place Ex. P. 1. registered partnership deed dated vide Ex. 21.12.1971 and the suit accommodation fell in the share of the present appellants. Accordingly, the respondent was intimated through a notice dated 17.6.1972 that the appellants have become the landlords of respondent. Subsequently, by notice dated 23.8.72 (Annexure D-8) tenancy was determined and the respondent was asked to vacate the suit premises on the ground of bonafide need and other grounds as stated above. The notice was replied by the respondent vide. Ex. B. 9 dated 26.9.1972. However, it appears that no action was taken despite serving of notice referred to above. Then again on 31.1.1973 (Ex. P. 23) another notice determining respondent's tenancy on the ground of landlords' bonafide need of the suit accommodation was served. Reply to this subsequent notice was also given by the respondent on 26.2.1973 vide Ex. D. 11. Thereafter the suit was presented before the Court on 1.4.1973.