ONPRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. RAMNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has filed present appeal. By the impugned order, learned lower appellate Court decreed the suit of plaintiff/respondent under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and granted a decree for eviction and mesne profits.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the respondent Ramnarayan filed a suit against Nanhumal, who died during pendency of this appeal and whose legal heirs are brought on record, for eviction from the shop situate in House No. 13, Talaiya Road, Ibrahimpura, Bhopal. The necessity which has been shown in the plaint is to start business of major son Shankar Dayal, who is presently doing business with Ramnarayan and wants to start his own business in the suit shop. Shankar Dayal wants to start his kirana business in the suit shop and is having no other reasonably suitable shop in Bhopal city. Plaintiff served notice on 16 -9 -1983 to the defendant through his advocate. Appellant contested the suit on the ground that two shops adjoining to the disputed shop are lying vacant in which plaintiff may start business of his son Shankardayal. Apart from this, plaintiff has let out newly constructed shop. There is no bona fide requirement of the shop but, in fact, plaintiff wants to enhance the rent of the shop from Rs. 31.87 to Rs. 100/ -. Previously also Shanklardayal started a business but he could not succeed. On this ground suit was prayed to be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court framed issues and after recording of evidence, arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has alternative shop in which he can start business of his son Shankardayal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal. Learned lower appellate Court after reappreciation of entire evidence arrived at a finding that in the city of Bhopal, plaintiff has no other accommodation in which his son Shankardayal could start his business and presently plaintiff and his son doing business in a rented shop. The shop which defendants state to be an alternative shop available to the plaintiff is not a shop but is a part of residential house. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court, reversing the judgment of the trial Court, has filed present appeal, which was admitted on 10 -11 -1995 on following substantial question of law: -