RAMSWARUP Vs. PREM NARAIN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from a suit for eviction on the ground contained in section 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs could not establish that their requirement is bona fide or that they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of their own in the city. The first appellate Court dismissed their appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are related as follows:- Munnilal Gopilal Laxmichand 1]. Motilal 1. Babulal 2]. Ramswaroop (plaintiff No. 1) 2. Bhagwandas (plaintiff No. 2) 3]. Hariram 3. Radheylal 4]. Chhotelal 4. Bux Chand.

(3.) RAMSWARUP and his wife have a separate living room ; so also Bhagwandas and his wife have a separate living room in the house. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the entire family consists of ten couples and about 20 or 22 children. For about 42 members these 20 rooms are not sufficient and as regards the house purchased in Jayendra Ganj, he states that one of them is not yet vacant and the other is not suitable. Moreover, they are not in the same locality. If the plaintiffs want to shift to their own house, which is in the same locality, so that they may live in the neighbourhood of their father and uncle and brothers, they should not be compelled to shift to another locality. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention.