MATADIN DATADIN Vs. MANORAMABAI RAMLAL GATTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been admitted on following substantial question of law :

(2.) SHRI A. K. Sethi for appellant and Shri S. H. Agrawal for respondents have been heard in context with the substantial question of law and the judgment and decree which are being assailed in view of the evidence on record.

(3.) SHRI Sethi, learned counsel for appellant argued that provision of section 12 (1) (f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience) does not provide that the landlord, for the purpose of getting a decree for evicting the tenant is required to prove "increase in the business". He argued that when the legal provisions of the Act were not requiring the plaintiff/landlord, the appellant, to prove his case on the point of "increase in the business", it was not legal for the first appellate Court to dislodge the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. He pointed out that the act of first appellate Court in dislodging the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on that point is illegal when the appellant-plaintiff did not come to the Court with such a case. Shri Sethi made reference to the evidence on record in that context as well as the judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court.