SARVJEET SINGH Vs. ISRAIL, PAINTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the Appellant/Plaintiff has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the District Judge, Durg on 19.12.2003, in Civil Suit No. 9A/2003.

(2.) THE judgment and decree is challenged on the ground that the learned District Judge has not considered the material sufficient for drawing inference that the present Appellant has proved the bona fide for suit accommodation and the Appellant is not in possession of any suitable vacant accommodation in Durg city and the Respondent has not deposited rent regularly.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant has filed the suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent. The Appellant is not in possession of vacant accommodation to satisfy his bona fide need. The Court below has arrived at a finding that the Respondent has not deposited rent regularly and committed regular default. Even he has not deposited rent during pendency of this appeal regularly. The Appellant has specifically pleaded and proved that no vacant accommodation is available for the purpose of business of his son but has admitted that three other shops were given in the rent to different persons. The Appellant has specifically stated that suit accommodation is required for spare parts business of his son-Harjeet Singh. The Defendant has not been able to bring anything in the cross-examination of the Plaintiff to discredit the statement relating to bona fide need. LEARNED Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Mst. Bega Begum and Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead) by LRs. and Ors. : AIR 1979 SC 272 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that reasonable requirement of the accommodation means undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish.