JAGMEET SINGH KHALSA Vs. SUDHAKAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered by this Court in this appellants'/defendants' second appeal is as under:-

(2.) The imperative facts required for determination of above-stated substantial question of law are as under:-

(3.) Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that both the Courts below have committed grave legal error in holding that the suit accommodation is required bonafide by the plaintiff for starting business of his sons. He would further submit that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has no other non-residential alternative suitable accommodation of his own for the purpose of his occupation as he has other alternative suitable accommodation in his possession and therefore, both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in granting decree. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune and another, 1999 AIR(SC) 2226 , Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, 2001 5 SCC 705 and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Chirongilal Kshiram v. Shankerlal and others, 1979 MPLJ 314.