JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. GURUBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the landlord-plaintiff, who was successful before the trial court but failed before the first appellate court, was by order dated 11-9-1985 admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

(2.) THE plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for eviction from open plot described in para 1 of the plaint on ground that he was in arrears of rent, had committed nuisance by breaking lavatory and bath room and 3ft. wall constructed on the plot and the plot was required by the plaintiff bona fide for construction of a tin shed for making furniture under it, grounds under Clauses (a), (c) and (n) of Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'act ). The defendant in his written-statement resisted the plaintiffs claim on the ground that his claim for erecting a tinshed for making furniture was not bona fide as the plaintiff in the City of Indore itself had a commercial shop doing furniture business and just near the place where he had his shop there was a plot which is convenient to the plaintiff. The suit plot is in backward area of the Indore city and was not suitable for doing furniture business. Other allegations were also denied. The defendant took up some other pleas which are not relevant for the purpose of the present appeal.

(3.) THE trial court by judgment and decree dated 11-9-1984 found that the plaintiff bona fide and in fact requires the suit plot for construction of a tin shed to run furniture business and that he was not possessed of any other suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Indore. He found that other allegations not made out. He decreed the claim for eviction against the defendant for ground under Clauses (n) under Section 12 (1) of the Act (landlord requires accommodation which is open plot for constructing a house on it ). In appeal by the tenant the first appellate court Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Indore by judgment and decree dated 25-4-1983 held that erection of a shed cannot be said to fulfil the requirement of construction of house or building within the meaning of Clauses (n) of Section 12 (1) of the Act. He also drew support from Clause (f) of Section 12 (1) of the Act and held that the suit plot is not required bona fide by the plaintiff for opening furniture factory and there is other suitable plot in his possession. He accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the tenant-defendant and dismissed the suit hence the present appeal.