(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing her suit for eviction of the defendants by reversing the decree of the trial Court, which had decreed the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiffs case is that she is the owner and land-lady of houses Nos. 22 and 23 in Sarafa Ward, Jabalpur, in the ground floor of which the defendants were tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/ -. It was a joint tenancy. The house originally belonged to her mother Kesharbai and on her death, she being the sole legal heir, inherited the same. The suit house is in a dilapidated condition and she wants to reconstruct the same. She also requires the suit accommodation for the purpose of starting a crockery shop for her son Kamal Kumar. After terminating the tenancy of the defendants the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants under section 12 (1) (f) and (h) of the Accommodation Control act on the ground of bona fide need for starting a business for her son and for reconstruction. The suit was opposed by the defendants contending that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the houses in question; in fact Kesharbai had made a will bequeathing the houses to the plaintiff, her husband Keshri Chand and her elder son bimal Kumar; the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiff alone cannot bring the suit for eviction; it was denied that the house is in a dilapidated condition or that the plaintiff requires the same for reconstruction; it was also denied that the plaintiff bona fide requires the suit accommodation for starting a crockery shop for his son Kamal Kumar; the tenancy is not joint but it is separate and each of the defendant is in occupation of distinct portions.
(3.) THE trial Court found that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit house and so she is competent to file the present suit for eviction of the defendants. It was also found that the suit house is in a dilapidated condition and is required by the plaintiff for re-construction; she has prepared plans and estimates and she has got necessary funds for reconstruction. The nature of the accommodation would not be radically altered by the reconstruction. The plaintiff also requires the suit accommodation bona fide for starting a crockery shop for his son Kamal Kumar and she has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation for this purpose in the city. Accordingly the suit was decreed including the claim for arrears of rent.