SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MOHAMMAD JAMIL ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of defendant tenant in the eviction suit challenging the judgment of the first appellate court dated 18/1/2005 in civil appeal No. 22/2004, whereby the judgment of the trial Court dated 30/6/2004 in C.S. No. 11A/2004 has been reversed and suit for eviction filed by respondent has been decreed on the ground of bonafide need for business under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

(2.) The respondent had filed the suit for eviction pleading that he is the owner of the suit house which was purchased by him in the name of his father and he had obtained the consent of the family for filing the suit. The eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent, materially altering the suit premises and the bonafide need of his sister's son Mohd. Yusuf Ansari for starting the business of Lathe Machine and for himself. The suit was opposed by the respondent denying the landlord tenant relationship and also denying the ground taken for evicting the appellant.

(3.) The trial Court by judgment dated 30/6/2004 had dismissed the suit by holding that the landlord tenant relationship is not established. It was also not proved that the appellant had done any material alteration and had affected the respondent's interest adversely in any manner. The ground of eviction for arrears of rent and the bonafide need of the respondent for himself and for his sister's son was also not proved and it was also not proved that the respondent had no other alternate accommodation in the town concerned. The first appellate court has reversed the judgment of the trial Court holding that the landlord tenant relationship is proved between the parties and bonafide need of the sister's son of respondent as well as the need of the respondent is proved. Accordingly, the first appellate court has granted the decree of eviction.