DILBAGRAI PUNJABI Vs. SHARAD CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is in possession of a shop in a town in Madhyd Pradesh a Pradesh as a tenant under the respondent who filed a suit out of which the present appeal arises for his eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The High Court in second appeal has reversed the decision and passed a decree.

(2.) The case is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and S. 12(1)(f) deals with the ground of landlord's bona fide necessity with reference to buldings let out for non-residential purposes, in the following words:-

(3.) The plaintiff claims that he requires the shop personally for starting a business and it is rightly contended by Mr. Kacker, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that it is essential for him to establish that he is the owner of the premises. A perusal of the language of the cl. (f) and a comparison thereof with that in the other clauses clearly leads to this conclusion. The issue in the case is whether the plaintiff, respondent before us, has been able to establish this condition.