ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellant had filed a civil suit No. 91-A/92 in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Class 1st, Guna for eviction and arrears of rent against tenant respondent on the ground that he requires the suit accommodation/shop for his business i. e. , for manufacturing furniture. The defendant denied the need on the ground that the plaintiff has sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties by judgment dated 29-9-95, decreed the suit of the plaintiff against which, defendant/respondent filed a civil appeal No. 49-A/95, before the District Judge, Guna, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :-

(3.) BOTH the substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal, relating to a common question as to whether, the bona fide need of the plaintiff is not made out on account of availability of suitable alternative accommodation. The learned Trial Court has framed issue Nos. 1 and 2 on this point and also came to the conclusion that it is proved from the evidence of plaintiff himself that there is yet another shop in possession of the plaintiff in the same premises, which is used for keeping the furnished goods, Another accommodation in the same house comprising six rooms which were previously let out for lodging purpose of a hotel, are also in possession of the plaintiff, However, according to learned Trial Court, this alternative accommodation is not suitable for the purpose of business of the plaintiff. Therefore, it seems that the learned Trial Court has not assigned any reasons for drawing such a conclusion as to how the availability of such alternative accommodation is not suitable for the business of carrying out a furniture shop or for making furniture.