DARASINGH Vs. PYARELAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and record of both the courts below is perused.

(2.) This second appeal under section 100 of C.P.C assails concurrent findings arrived at by both the two courts below while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff claiming eviction under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the suit which relates to the shop No. 3 was filed without pleading that alternative accommodation within the Municipal Limit of the town is not available. It is further contended that the suit was not maintainable for having been filed by the individual partner when the tenancy was created by a firm. It is further contended that despite availability of alternative shop and despite no effort being made to occupy the said vacant alternative shop available, the need shown by the plaintiff / landlord was not real, but was a feigned one. It is further contended that for other two shops situated adjacent to the suit shop, the plaintiff/landlord has already entered into compromise with the tenants of the said other two shops to the extent that the tenants would vacate the two shops by the year 2016 and since the shop in question alongwith the said two shops are sought for opening of a medical clinic by the son of the plaintiff/landlord, the same arrangement arrived at by compromise in regard to the said two shops be also applied for the suit shop .