PREMCHAND JAIN Vs. ROMESH HORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant -tenant's second appeal under section 100. CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

(2.) THERE is a concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the suit accommodation is bonafide required by the plaintiff for carrying on business by his son Ramesh and he has no other reasonably suitable non -residential accommodation of his own for that purpose in the city. The defendant is tenant of the plaintiff in a shop measuring 5' x 4' feet in House No. 1, Ward No. 24, Sehore and is doing the business of a medical store. The plaintiff's case was that there is another adjacent small shop in the same house which is vacant and Ramesh wants to carry on the business of building material, sanitary fittings and pipes in the suit accommodation and also in the shop which is vacant by combining the two shops. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff's need is genuine and he really intends to carry on the said business. This finding on the facts as found cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is not open to interference in second appeal. When the plaintiff's need has been held to be bonafide the defendant is liable to eviction.