PRABHULAL Vs. SAIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, "at the hearing stage, application is made under Order XLI, rule 27, CPC to establish the position that plaintiffs/appellants are no more in bona fide need of the suit premises and their suit under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is liable to be dismissed. It is true that with that application, certain sale -deeds are filed. One is in favour of Brijesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar and they are described as grand -sons of Prabhulal son of Ganga Ram. Appellant No.1 has also given his name as Prabhulal son of Ganga Ram. The other sale -deed is in favour of Hari Prasad, who is appellant No.2 himself. However, the question if these new aquisitions can be regarded as reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose of business which is to be set up by the plaintiffs/appellants, is a question which is to be determined on evidence. Indeed, it is also to be determined if the plaintiffs/appellants had become "owners" of the newly acquired premises within the meaning of the term employed in section 12(1) (f) of the said Act. Both are questions of fact and both questions are to be decided on fresh evidence