Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) TWO Courts below recorded finding of fact against the appellant/tenant in a suit filed for eviction of the appellant/tenant by the respondent/landlord. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit property and within one year of the purchase, he filed the suit for eviction of the appellant/tenant. In view of the above reason only, the plaintiff 's suit was not bona fide. It is also submitted that the plaintiff stated that he is unemployed and have no income and he wants to start business in the property in dispute which is in occupation of the appellant as tenant. Whereas it has come on record from the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses that the plaintiff is possessing several properties including the shops which are lying vacant. It is submitted that the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in identical facts and circumstances of purchase of property by a person and then filing suit for eviction of the tenant, denied the relief of eviction. For this, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Indrasen Jain v. : AIR2005SC578 .
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the two judgments passed by the Courts below.;