MOHAMMAD ISMAIL Vs. SIKHANDAR AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff landlord whose suit for eviction has been dismissed. This Court vide order dated 11-5-2007 had admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) The relevant facts necessary to answer the question of law framed by this Court are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit on 11-11-1987 seeking the decree for eviction on the ground enumerated under section 12(l)(a), (c), (f), (g)and (h) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The plaintiff sought the decree under section 12(l)(f) on the ground that the plaintiff is unemployed and needs the suit accommodation bona fide for opening a general store and he has no alternative accommodation. The defendant filed the written statement in which inter alia, the bona fide need of the plaintiff was denied on the ground that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling the cattle feed and is running a shop in which bicycles are let out on rent and is not unemployed.

(3.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-12-1992 inter alia, held that the plaintiff is running shop in which bicycles are let out on rent and he is not unemployed. It was also held that in notices Exs. D-l and D-2, dated 1-2-1985 and 27-7-1987, the bona fide need of the plaintiff's brother was set up. It was further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has no alternative accommodation. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial Court only insofar as it related to his claim for eviction under section 12(l)(f) of the Act. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 1-11-1999 inter alia, held that if the plaintiff would have needed the suit shop bona fide, he would not have set up the need of his brother in notices Exs. D-l and D-2. Without discussing the statements of Sikhandar, the defendant and Naresh Kumar defendant Witness No. 2 and merely by referring to their statements in paragraph 11 Appellate Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of sewing of mattress and quilts, letting out the bicycles on rent and selling of cattle feed. Accordingly, the bona fide need of the plaintiff was not found to be proved. It was further held that though the plaintiff's father is carrying on the business in the shop situate in front of the house of the plaintiff and has stated that it is rented accommodation yet neither the rent receipts have been filed nor the landlord has been examined to prove that the accommodation where the business is carrying on by the plaintiff's father is rented accommodation. The plaintiff in paragraph 6 of his deposition has admitted that the shop situate in front of his house belongs to him therefore, the plaintiff has alternative accommodation. Accordingly, the decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed.