MANIK CHAND SAMDADIA Vs. PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by which suit of plaintiff seeking eviction of the respondents from the suit shop on the ground of bona fide necessary was dismissed.

(2.) PRESENT suit was filed on 22-3-1984 before Rent Controlling authority but after amendment in M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it was transmitted to Civil Court to decide in accordance with law. Suit was filed on the ground that the respondents are tenants of the suit accommodation at the rate of rent Rs. 300/- per month. The aforesaid accommodation is bona fidely needed for the office of hotel of appellant. The present place of office is very small and insufficient to the appellant. Size of present place of office is 8'6" x 18'3" which is a room of hotel and in absence of any other accommodation appellant has to carry on his office in the aforesaid room. Plaintiff is also in need of one room for stores which is also not available to him. On this ground the suit was filed for suit accommodation which is suitable for the need of plaintiff. Another ground of eviction is that the suit shop was given to Premchand as a Proprietor of Fine Footwear, but, subsequently, Premchand sub-let it to defendant Nos. 3 and 4, Kripaldas and Bhagchand, and parted with possession of the shop either for consideration or otherwise for which no permission was sought from the appellant. On this ground the suit was filed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS filed written statement contesting the suit inter alia, the ground of bona fide necessity and sub-tenancy was denied. Contention of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is that the only purpose of filing suit is to enhance the rent. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not the sub-tenants but, in fact, they are tenants of suit accommodation. The suit is filed on incorrect facts.