DUDHNATH HUKUM SINGH Vs. ASHOK MAHADEO SANGEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant has acquired vacant possession of accommodation suitable for his residence, the accommodation in question requires to be reconstructed, which is not possible without the eviction of the tenant and the landlord requires the suit premises for its bona fide need which are grounds for eviction Under Section 12 (1) (i) (g) and (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively. Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur by judgment and decree dated 22-8-1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 127-A of 1994 decreed the suit after recording the finding in favour of the plaintiff on all counts. Tenant preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur by judgment and decree dated 27-9-1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18-A of 1996 maintained the decree of the trial Court on the grounds enumerated Under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act, but reversed the finding of the trial Court in relation to the other two grounds. Aggrieved by the same defendant has preferred this appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by order dated 7-1-1997 the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) SHRI Trivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the plaintiff having not pleaded that the accommodation acquired by the tenant is suitable for his residence, condition of Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act is not satisfied and accordingly the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are fit to be reversed. Section 12 (1) (i) of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) TENANT has been defined Under Section 2 (i) of the Act which reads as follows: