DINESH KUMAR Vs. YUSUF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25th January, 2006 passed in Second Appeal No. 726 of 2003 by which the High Court while allowing the Second Appeal reversed the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the First Appellate Court in First Appeal No. 2/2003 by which the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 30A/1999 allowing the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant-tenant was inducted by the respondent- landlord on 1.10.1978 in a shop in house No. 83, Main Street, Mhow for a non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The respondent-landlord enhanced the rent from time to time and ultimately it was enhanced on 1.3.1995 to the extent of Rs. 700/-p.m. The respondent-landlord had taken a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as loan from the appellant-tenant. Some amount therefrom was to be adjusted towards a part of monthly rent. Respondent-landlord filed suit No. 30A/1999 on 1.4.1999 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of nuisance and bone fide requirement for himself contending that he was carrying on business of plastic goods and shoes in a rented 'Gumti' measuring 3 ft. x 4 ft. on a Nalla. Respondent was in need of the disputed shop for carrying on his business alongwith his son Zulfikar Ali. Parties exchanged the affidavits and examined large number of witnesses in support of their respective claims before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002, decreed the suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1961') on the ground of bona fide need, however, did not accept the plea of nuisance.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the First Appeal No. 2/2003 before the First Additional District Judge, Mhow and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2003 on the ground that the landlord had enhanced the rent from time to time; his son had been in employment in Dubai, therefore, the bona fide need was a pretext to enhance the rent or evict the tenant.