PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA Vs. HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, are from the judgments and decrees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal Nos. 408/89 and 409/89 passed on 9-7-1997. The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two shops in house Nos. 23/507 and 508 situated at Azad Chowk Handipara, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises').

(2.) On 2-5-85, the appellant filed two suits in the Court of IInd Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, against the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing a Provision Store under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). He stated that he had no alternative reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation in the city of Raipur for the said purpose. The respondent's plea was one of denial of bona fide requirement of the landlord. After framing necessary issues and considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement and observed that he had only a desire to establish the business for his son. However, he recorded the finding that the appellant had no reasonable suitable accommodation in the Raipur city. Consequently both the suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by a Common judgment on January 27, 1987. Dissatisfied with that judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellant filed two appeals in the Court of 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Raipur. The learned District Judge, on appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant had proved bona fide requirement for establishing a business for his son. In that view of the matter he allowed the appeals and decreed the suits against the respondent on September 6, 1989. The tenant questioned the correctness of the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge before the High Court in Second Appeal Nos. 408-409 of 1989.

(3.) The High Court, at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, framed the following question of law for determination:-