OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. Heard Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The tenant is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the Second Appeal filed by him on the ground, inter alia, that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.

(2.) THE Respondent -landlord filed the suit seeking eviction of the Appellant under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground of bona fide requirement. The property in question is a shop room bearing No. 14, at Sabzi Mandi, New Market, City of Bhopal. The ground for eviction stated in the Eviction Petition was that the landlord needs the shop room for running his business. It is also stated in the petition that the landlord is at present carrying on business with his son Sanjay in the shop room bearing No. 75 which is not convenient for him and he wants to have his separate business.

(3.) THE main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the document Annexure P -3 which is a partnership deed between the Respondent and his son Sanjay clearly shows that the need pleaded is not a bona fide one. Elucidating the point, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sharan submitted that since the landlord is already in occupation of a shop room in which he is carrying on the business, the need for the shop which is in occupation of the Appellant cannot be said to be bona fide.