PRAKASH Vs. AJAY KUMAR CHHOTWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2006 passed by XIII ADJ, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/06 whereby the judgment and decree dated 23-2-2006 passed by XIV Civil Judge Class-I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 213-A/03 whereby the suit filed by the respondent under section 12(l)(f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act was decreed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appeal was admitted for final hearing on 15-5-2007 on the following substantial questions of law -

(3.) Short facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for eviction on 1-5-2002 alleging that respondents are owner of part of property bearing house No. 482 situated at M. G. Road, Indore. It was alleged that a shop having width of 5ft. 4 inches in width and 37ft in length is in occupation of appellants as tenants of which rent is being paid @ Rs. 300/- per month. It was alleged that respondents purchased the suit property from the previous owner Santosh vide registered sale deed dated 8-1-2001 and 9-1-2001. It was alleged that appellants have paid the rent to the respondents upto 30-4-2002 and are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-5-2002. Further case of the respondents was that respondent. No. 1 is having friendly relations with the appellants and appellants assured that if the respondent No. 1 purchase the property in which appellants are also tenants, then appellants shall vacate the suit accommodation and shall give possession to respondent No. 1. It was alleged that upon their assurance, respondent No. 1 purchased the property and after purchasing the property when the respondent No. 1 requested the appellants to vacate the suit accommodation, upon that appellants assured that suit accommodation shall be vacated after 4-6 months. It was alleged that respondents require the suit accommodation for carrying on the business of electronic items of their major sons. It was alleged that shop which is in occupation of respondent No. 1 is smaller for carrying on their business. Further case of respondents was that respondent No. 1 is in occupation of a shop which is measuring 3 x 16ft. It was alleged that except that, respondents are having no alternative accommodation in their possession in H. No. 482 situated at M. G. Road which was purchased from the ex-landlord Santoshsingh Patel. It was also alleged that respondents are not having any convenient alternative accommodation in the city of Indore fromwhere the requirement of respondents can be fulfilled. It was alleged that suit shop is adjacent shop, therefore the same is more convenient for carrying on the business. Further case of the respondents was that shop which is in occupation of the appellants is 5 ft 4 inches x 37 ft. in length while the shop which is in occupation of respondent No. 1 is 8 ft x 13 ft. and 4 inches. It was alleged that after adjoining both the shops, the place will be more convenient for meeting out the bona fide requirement of his son. The plaint filed by the respondents was further amended on 12-12-2003 whereby it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had died on 13-5-2002. It was alleged that after his death, his sons Manoj and Naveen are carrying on the business of electronic items from the place which was in occupation of respondents. It was also alleged that shop which is in occupation of the respondents is small and inconvenient, therefore the respondents require the suit accommodation and need of the respondents is bona fide. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing the written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that respondents require the suit accommodation bona fidely for expanding the business of their sons. It was also denied that respondents are having no alternative accommodation. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which appeal was filed which was dismissed, hence this appeal.