PRAMILA NAHAR Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR GUJARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -defendant has filed this appeal under section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2003 in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhanpura Camp Garoth confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge Class II, Garoth. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was the tenant of his grandmother Gomtibai on the monthly rent of Rs. 150/- in a shop situated at Station Road, Shamgarh and after the death of his grandmother Gomtibai, the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit premises and the defendant has accepted him as a landlord. That the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent of 20 months total Rs. 3,000/- even after the service of the quit-cum-demand notice dated 29.5.1991. That the suit premises are bonafidely required by the plaintiff for his business and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation of his own to satisfy the need. That the defendant has denied the ownership and the title of the plaintiff of the suit premises. The plaintiff has prayed for the eviction of the defendant under section 12(1) (a), (c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and also for the arrears of rent.

(2.) THE case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not the owner and the landlord and the defendant was the tenant of Gomtibai on the monthly rent of Rs. 81/- only. That after the death of Gomtibai, the plaintiff has not become the owner of the suit property. The defendant has denied that she is in arrears of rent. Defendant has further denied that the suit premises is bona fidely required by the plaintiff and he has no other suitable accommodation in the town to satisfy the need. The learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises and the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit premises on the ground of the bona fide need and the denial of title by the defendant. The learned appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the* appellant has prayed to admit the appeal on the following substantial question of law :