HAJI MULLA SULAIMANJEE HAJI UYSFALI Vs. GANPATLAL JOGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord Plaintiff's second appeal who had instituted a suit on 19 -1 -1948 against the Defendants tenants for ejectment from a shop on the ground floor of a house No. 79 in Hathipala Road, Indore, for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The House Rent Control Order of 1943 was at that time in force and did not apply to Shops. Plaintiff had given a notice to quit on 12 -12 -1947 asking the Defendants to vacate the shop on 31 -12 -1947. The Defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the M.O. of Rs. 48/ - was sent to the Plaintiff for arrears of rent but he had refused to accept it, that he is willing to deposit the rent in the Court and that the suit was premature as there was an oral agreement that the lease would continue for a period of two years. He also stated that the place is suitable for residence and should fall within the definition of the word 'house' and according to the provisions of the Rent Control Order cannot be vacated. Issues were framed on the pleadings, but in May 1948 change in the Indore House Rent Control Order of 1943 was effected. The new law applied to non -residential premises and the definition of the 'house' was widened. Defendant amended his written statement and added:

(2.) WHETHER the Plaintiff landlord genuinely requires the accommodation for his own residence and whether the Plaintiff has no other place to live in Indore?

(3.) THE two Courts below have held that the place was required by the Plaintiff for the purposes of a shop or for carrying on business and not for his residence. This is a concurrent finding of fact binding on me in second appeal.