JAGANNATH KASTURCHAND YARN MERCHANTS Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 514/90 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the appeal and passed a decree of eviction of the suit premises under Section 12(1)(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal has been filed by the respondent (appellant herein).

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

(3.) The suit was initially instituted by Smt.Bhuri Bai who died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore her name was deleted from the array of the appellants and her son continued as an appellant/plaintiff. The deceased plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises house No. 739 Lordganj, Jabalpur. The suit premises was purchased by her son and deceased Smt. Bhuri Bai from the original owner. When the suit premises was purchased the defendant (appellant herein) was a tenant therein. Along with him other defendant was also residing in suit premises. The tenancy was for residential as well as for non-residential purposes. The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the suit premises is required bona fide for his /her residence as well as for starting business. Learned counsel for the respondent (herein) did not press the ground for eviction under Section 12(1)(e) and (f) of the Act. The only ground was taken that the suit premises was illegally sub-let to the appellant(herein) and, therefore, the decree for eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellant court also dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against that order the second appeal was preferred. The following substantial question of law was formulated which reads as under: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below erred in law is finding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to evict the defendants respondents from the suit accommodation on the ground specified in clauses (b) (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act."