MUNNA LAL Vs. ROOPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by reversal of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for bonafide requirement of starting of the business by Manoj Jain based on 12 (1) (f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). The Appellate court has found that the plaintiffs required the suit accommodation bonafide for starting of the business by Manoj Kumar Jain. The alternative accommodation pointed out by the defendant cannot be said to be reasonable suitable alternative accommodation for that purpose.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS Rupa Bai and Manoj Kumar Jain came to the Court averring that house was owned by Rupa Devi situated at Ganj Gate, Sadar bazar, Murar, District Gwalior having Municipal No. 133/34. The defendant was in occupation of the disputed shop @ of Rs. 300/- per month. Same was required bonafide by the plaintiff for business of electricity goods by Manoj kumar. There was no other alternative accommodation available in the limits of municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Plaintiff No. 2 was unemployed. Plaintiffs were having the means required for initiation of the business. Notice was served by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. Shop was not vacated nor the rent due was paid, hence suit was filed.

(3.) THE defendant in the written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that there were shops in the house in question which were not disclosed in the map. Plaint map was not correct. The disputed shop belongs to all the legal representatives of the deceased Kali Charan. There was partition between them. Requirement was denied. Plaintiff Manoj Kumar Jain was doing the business at Thatipur in the name and style of 'jain Electrical repairing Center' in the shop owned by him. There were other alternative accommodations available, which have been concealed. Manoj Kumar Jain was doing the business of STD/pco in the shop situated at Ganj Gate, Murar, that fact has also been concealed. Plaintiffs were not having arrangements of funds required for the purpose of business of Manoj Kumar Jain. Requirement was not bonafide, hence it was prayed that suit be dismissed.