SHANKARLAL Vs. ONKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by plaintiffs who were unsuccessful in their claim for eviction in the two courts below was by order dated 5-11-85 admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law set out below :- "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case defendant has acquired suitable vacant accommodation for residence and plaintiffs are entitled to eviction under S. 12(1)(i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act ?"

(2.) The plaintiffs case in brief is that they are owner of the house bearing No. 2, Kanoongo Bakhal, Indore. The defendant is a tenant of one room and osari for residential purpose on the first floor of the plaintiffs' commences from the first of every month according to English Calendar. The plaintiffs claimed for eviction on the ground under S.12(1)(e) and (it of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) - Bona fide requirement for residence for himself and for any member of his family and there being no other alternative accommodation of his own in the city and that the defendant has acquired vacant possession of house bearing No. 13/30 Peer Gali, Indore on 28-12-1972 which is suitable for his residence he has also acquired premises consisting of five rooms at 146 Pandharinath Path, Indore and his need does not exist. The plaintiff after serving quit-notice, Ex. P/4 germinating tenancy on 31-1-78 filed the suit claiming mesne profits and eviction. The defendant resisted the suit contending that house at 146, Pandharinath Path did not belong to him but was gifted to his wife and sons and could not be taken into consideration in judging defendant's need. About house No,13/30 Peer Gali it was submitted that house is Kachcha and old and has no water connection and lavatory and is not suitable for his residence. The suit was filed with ulterior motive to getting the rent increased and it was res judicata.

(3.) The trial Court (6th Civil Judge, Class II, Indore) by judgment and decree dated 25-1-85 held that the defendant had acquired house bearing Municipal No, 13 / 30 Peer Gali, Indore on 28-12-72 but the same was not suitable for residence. The plaintiffs did not require the house bona fide for residence of members of his family, that he was not possessed of any alternative accommodation at Indore, that it was not resjudicata; that house at 146 Pandharinath Path is not suitable for defendant's residence. With these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.