CHUNNI LAL Vs. ABRAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.120-A/2007 by the XI Additional District Judge, Bhopal, arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.588-A/2006 by the X Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the appellant/defendant on the ground that the appellant was a tenant in the demise premises. The suit shop was required by the respondent/plaintiff bonafidely for the purposes of starting business of his son. Since the respondent/plaintiff was having no other accommodation for the purposes of starting the business of his son, the tenancy of the appellant/defendant was terminated. Despite the demand since the suit shop was not vacated by the appellant, the suit was required to be filed.

(2.) The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement stating that the respondent/plaintiff was having various other accommodations suitable for the purposes of business of his son. The son of the respondent/ plaintiff was in fact involved in the cultivation and, therefore, only with a malafide intention, the suit was filed for eviction of the appellant on a false ground. It was stated that in fact the respondent/plaintiff was pressurizing the appellant/defendant for enhancement of the rent of the demise premises illegally but since this was not accepted, the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It was contended that such a demand of enhancement of rent was not acceptable only because the appellant was running losses in business.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the issues, recorded the statements of witnesses and reached to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff could not prove that the demise premises was required bonafidely for the establishment of the business of the son of the respondent/plaintiff. However, the other issue was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff holding that he was not having any other suitable accommodation for establishment of the shop of his son, though it was also held that the suit accommodation was not suitable for the purposes of establishing the kerosene business of the son of respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the respondent preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which after considering various law, reached to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has in fact proved the bonafide need of his son and for the said purposes, a decree of eviction of the appellant from the demise premises could be granted by the Civil Court. In view of this, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed. The suit of the respondent/ plaintiff was decreed for eviction of the appellant, therefore, this second appeal is required to be filed.