RAMJIDAS Vs. RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The High Court by its order dated 6.9.96 in Second Appeal No. 206 of 1995 set aside the findings recorded by both the courts below in which they held that the need of the landlord was not bona fide under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The main submission by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanghi on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below. He has taken us to the findings recorded both by the trial court and also by the first appellate court. Having perused the said two judgments, we find the main consideration by both the courts below were, the conduct of landlord-Respondent between the years 1975 to 1980. In 1975 he purchased this property and then made an application for the eviction of the then tenant, on the ground of his bona fide need of doing his business in the disputed shop. The court ultimately decreed it followed by the tenant vacating the accommodation. Inspite of this the respondent did not start any business in the said shop. On the contrary he inducted in new tenants which was only for the enhancement of its rent and not for starting any business.

(3.) We find the courts below have scrutinised the evidence but solely based its decision on the past conduct of the landlord without taking into consideration of the present need. The appellate courts recorded the following findings :