MANSHARAM Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit based on landlord and tenant relationship filed by the Plaintiff/ Appellant, seeking ejectment of the Defendant/Respondent from the suit shop alleging genuine requirement of the Plaintiff for starting the business of his major son, was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The Plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

(2.) A perusal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court shows that the trial Court found that Madanlal (PW 4) major son of the Plaintiff (PW 1), was sitting idle having secured post -graduate degree and was inclined to start his own business dealing in iron goods and genuinely needed the suit premises for the purpose. The suit shop was purchased by the Plaintiff under the registered deed dated 7 -10 -71 (Ex. P/1) and was exclusively owned by him. The Plaintiff or his son Madanlal did not have any other alternative accommodation available to satisfy his need.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court reversed the finding by entering into an academic study of the concepts of desire vis -a -vis need questioning why the Plaintiff chose to sit idle and not to get involved in any one of several business activities of the family, holding that the joint family business run by the other members of the family in the name of M/s. Mansharam and Suns was as much as a business of the Plaintiff as that of the joint family and hence he could not seek ejectment unless and until the Plaintiff could make out a case of expansion of joint family business. Without citing, it appears, that the lower appellate Court had in its mind a Single Bench decision in Bhagwaniyabai v. Krishna Sewak, 1964 MPLJ SN 12.