SHANKARLAL Vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by appellants against judgment and decree dtd. 09/11/2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.19/2021 by IInd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 19/02/2021 passed in Civil Suit No.2400006/12 by Vth Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent for their eviction from the suit shop has been decreed on ground enumerated under Sec. 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "the Act, 1961").

(2.) The plaintiff instituted an action against defendant, since deceased now being represented through his legal representatives, the appellants for his eviction from the suit shop submitting that the same is bonafide required by him for commencing hand-loom business for his son Hemant Kumar, that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town, that premises available adjoining the suit shop is extremely small and wholly unsuitable for business and is not owned solely by plaintiff, that he is carrying on business from a shop at Sadar Bazar and that the suit shop is only shop available for his son.

(3.) The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement submitting inter-alia that the suit shop is not bonafide required by plaintiff for commencing business of his son Hemant Kumar, that the need as set-up by him is false, that towards east of the suit shop an alternate vacant accommodation is available with plaintiff which has been let-out by him only recently, that plaintiff has acquired several other accommodations during the relevant period hence the need pleaded by him is malafide.