BABULAL Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed a civil suit seeking eviction of the contesting Respondent 1 herein under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the appellants had neither pleaded nor proved as to what was the requirement of the second appellant; and he had not stated in his plaint whether he wanted to open a new business or wanted to continue the old business which has expanded in the meanwhile. In the appeal filed by the appellants against the dismissal of the suit by the trial court, the first appellate court, after reappreciating the evidence placed on record in the light of the contentions raised, concluded that the appellants established their case under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act for eviction of the respondent from the premises in question. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. The second appeal was admitted by the High Court on 22-6-1989 on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The High Court found fault with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the appellants in their plaint seeking eviction of the respondent did not specify the nature of the business. According to the High Court, merely stating that the premises was required bonafide for the purpose of starting business was not enough; it was essential that the particulars and nature of business should have also been averred in the plaint. It is mainly on this ground that the High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. Hence, this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the High Court was not at all right and justified in upsetting the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence that were placed on record. According to the learned counsel, no substantial question of law arose for consideration between the parties.