OMPRAKASH Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANCY - Eviction - Accommodation Control Act - Appeal by landlord -Plaintiffs in an ejectment suit against tenant Defendants was from judgment of first Appellate Court dismissing suit for ejectment differing from Trial Court which had decreed suit - Hence this Appeal - Whether Plaintiffs were genuinely in need of this accommodation for this business and whether they do not have any other accommodation in city of Indore suitable for this purpose - Held Plaintiffs were in genuine and bona fide need of accommodation for starting a Book Seller's shop - It was not merely a desire or a pretext but a requirement - First appellate Court had given findings that Plaintiff No. 1 was member of trading family and in fact other members had been running business in cloth and like - Thus, intention of Plaintiff No. 1 to start his own business and not to be merely a helper or sleeping partner in his brother's or father's business was quite understandable and was genuine - He had not done any book -selling before or, in fact, any other business solely on his own, but one had to start to at same time - Plaintiff in his evidence stated that capital of about ten or twelve thousands might be needed - It had not been suggested that this was an underestimate or that family would not be able to provide this - It was a prospering trading family and both father and brother were doing quite well - As for Plaintiff No. 1's personal qualification was matriculation and was a 'Visharad' in Hindi and further that he had been taking interest in books - Qualifications were not very impressive; but, for running a book -business - Therefore findings of first Appellate court was set aside - Appeal disposed of.

(2.) THE findings on all the other issues in both the Courts are in favour of the plaintiffs ; but the appellate Court's finding on the genuineness of the personal need is not complete. In case the appeal is dismissed there will be nothing more to be done in this regard. If, however, the appeal is allowed the case will have to go back either under Order 41 rule 25 CPC, or on a complete remand to the appellate Court for a finding on this issue or for disposal in the light of the directions in this Court's judgment.

(3.) THE plaintiffs noticed the defendants terminating the lease and asking for the handing over of possession of the premises because "they wanted to run their own business in the accommodation". Actually there had to be two notices a notice in 1961 which was found by the Courts to be legally defective and a fresh notice in 1962 immediately before the instant suit. In both of them of requirement was stated generally as mentioned above. In the plaint also the requirements.