VEER BAHADUR SINGH Vs. RAJKUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assails both the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, by which the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity the "Act") for bona fide need of expansion of business by the son of the landlord has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Counsel for appellant/tenant contends that the findings of the Courts below are perverse as the Courts below failed to see that there were no pleadings in the plaint of the landlord as regards availability of other two shops with the landlord. It is further contended by the appellant that in the statement of Sanjeev Jain (PW2), who is the son of the landlord, for whom the bona fide need was shown, nothing has come on record as regards the landlord being in possession of two shops, which could have satisfied the bona fide need. It is further contended by referring to para 17 of the judgment of the first appellate Court that presumption drawn in favour of the landlord is unlawful. It is also submitted that the need of the son to expand his business also stood satisfied in the alternative accommodation owned by the landlord.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Pershad, 2003 9 SCC 151.