RAM GOPAL Vs. SHYAMLAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been submitted against the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned Lower Appellate Judge on the grounds under section 12 (1) ,(c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was submitted before the Lower Appellate Court, which has not been considered while rendering impugned judgment and decree. This apart, it is contended that the shop occupied by the plaintiff's mother by virtue of judgment and decree dated 23.9.1988 is still in vacant condition and the suit could not have been dismissed on the ground of bona fide requirement.

(3.) On perusal, it is found that Civil Suit No. 459A/88 was instituted by Gallobai for her own non-residential need and for the need of Niranjan Kumar. Specific suggestion was put to the plaintiff during his evidence in paragraph No. 14 of the statement. It is categorically stated that the said shop was got vacated by Gallobai for her own business. It has further been stated that the shop is in possession of the plaintiff's son namely Brij Kishore from the time of his mother. Thus, the alternative shop is not in vacant condition and consequently the defendants are not found to have been prejudiced on account of non- consideration of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.