RAMKISHORE GOYAL Vs. SAMPATLAL VYAS DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant / defendant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009 passed by XIV Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/09 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2009 passed by X Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior in COS No. 148-A/09, by which a decree for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) & (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the ground of bona fide need has been passed in favour of the original plaintiff Sampatlal Vyas.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the original plaintiff / landlord namely Sampatlal instituted a suit for eviction under Section 12 ( 1) (f) of the Act against the appellant / defendant. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff Sampatlal died. It is alleged in the plant that the plaintiff is owner of the house No. 47/842 situated at Deedwanaoli, Lashkar, Gwalior and the appellant / defendant is tenant in the shop of this house on rent @ Rs.1030/- per month. The suit for eviction has been filed under Section 12 (1) (c) (f) (k) & (m) of the Act but the learned trial court decreed the suit under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act on the ground of bona fide need. The learned lower appellate court has also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The appellant / defendant, who is tenant, in his written statement, has submitted that the suit shop was taken on rent by the father of the appellant / defendant namely Dr. Omkar Nath Goyal in the year 1931 from the father of the original plaintiff namely Shyamlal Vyas and the tenancy was written. The appellant / defendant is practicing as dentist with the help of his sons Sanjay and Anup in the suit shop. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff along with his brothers Ramdhan and Jagdish instituted a suit in the court of II Additional District Judge, Gwalior, against the appellant / defendant in which compromise decree was passed on 18.12.1990. Therefore, the plaintiff is not alone owner of the suit shop and the suit for bona fide requirement to the plaintiff's son is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the suit was filed to pressurize the defendant.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the appellant has filed this second appeal which has been admitted vide order dated 5.7.2010 on the following Substantial Questions of law :-