GYANCHAND JAIN Vs. NARENDRASINGH RAJPUT & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) The appeal is by the defendant/tenant against the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below.

(3.) Brief facts of this case are that a suit was filed by Narendra Singh Rajput and Ghanshyam Singh Rajput stating that subject suit shop was purchased by them by a registered sale deed dated 31.01.2006 from Shailendra and others. Thereafter, the appellant was informed about such purchase by registered notice dated 17.05.2006. By such notice, the arrears of rent of the suit shop @ Rs.1000/- per month was also demanded by the plaintiffs. It was further contended that even after such notice, defendant/tenant did not pay the arrears of rent and subsequently it was also contended that defendant had closed his shop and shifted his business elsewhere. It was further stated that suit house is 50 years old and in dilapidated condition, thereby the plaintiffs by demolishing the said shop wants to reconstruct the same in order to start their own business as they do not have any alternative accommodation in the city of Mungeli. It was further stated that the plaintiffs are running their medical shop in a rented premises, therefore, the suit house is required bona fidely. So the grounds were made of Sections 12 (1) (a), 12(1) (d) and 12(1) (h) of the Accommodation Control Act.