LAXMAN DAS Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is by the tenant aggrieved by his ejectment under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. There are concurrent findings of the two courts below against the appellant that the suit shop is required bonafidely by the respondent for the auto business of his son and wife running in the name and style of M/s Seth and Sons. The finding as to bona fide requirement is a finding of fact and can not be interfered with in the present appeal unless the appeal raises a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/tenant has argued that Section 12 (l)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 does not visualise bona fide need of a firm or of the wife of the landlord/owner of the property. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in the present case, the respondent being the landlord of the appellant had claimed ejectment of the appellant for the bona fide need of a firm M/s Seth and sons, which was owned by his son and the wife. The contention is that the firm for whom ejectment was sought by the respondent does not come within the ambit of Section 12 (l)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This argument in the opinion of this court is completely devoid of any merit. For a proper appreciation of the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to the pleadings of the respondent contained in his ejectment petition, wherein he has set out his bona fide requirement of the suit shop and the same is extracted below:-

(2.) At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant does not intend to go any further in appeal against the order of this court and wants to finish the matter once for all. He, therefore, makes an oral request for grant of two years' time to the appellant for vacating the suit accommodation so that he may arrange for an alternative accommodation for earning his livelihood. The counsel for the parties have been heard on the question of grant of time to the appellant for vacating the suit accommodation. The time for two years prayed for by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant for vacating the suit shop has been strongly opposed by Shri Sarvesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The appellant is stated to be in possession of the suit shop since 1974. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is in possession of the suit shop for last more than 35 years, this court considers it in the interest of justice to grant him one year's time for vacating the suit shop on the same terms and conditions of tenancy as on date subject to his filing an undertaking in this court in the form of his affidavit within 10 days from today undertaking to vacate the suit accommodation latest by 3Pt December 2012. A copy of the said undertaking should also be filed by the appellant before the executing court within the same time period of 10 days. In case the appellant fails to file the requisite undertaking within 10 days from today, then the respondent shall be entitled to execute the ejectment decree against him forthwith.