UDAY CHAND JAIN Vs. SHARDA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) Suit Property is a house bearing No.1008 situated at Andherdeo being owned by the plaintiff after the death of her husband who received the same vide partition. One portion of the suit property, marked as ABCD in the suit map was given on rent to the defendant on 17.10.1985 under Rent Agreement for a period of twenty years which having expired and being not vacated despite of its being required for the purpose of establishing gem and jewellery shop by plaintiffs' son led her to file a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide need under section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 Defendant contradicted the claim and denied the bonafide requirement stating that suit accommodation is only required to be re-rented on a higher premium and rent. It was also pleaded that there is no specific pleadings in the plaint as to bonafide need.

(3.) Trial Court framed seven issues on the basis of pleadings of which issue no.4 pertain to bonafide need as to whether the suit premises is required bonafide to establish the gem and jewellery business for the son and issue no.5 as to whether there is no alternative suitable accommodation available in the town. 'These issues has been answered in favour of plaintiff in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment by trial Court which as apparent therefrom is on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led in commensurate therewith. These findings are even affirmed by the first appellate Court.