PUSHPA KUMAR Vs. VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs were the owners and landlords of a double- storied building situated in Udai Chowk locality of Mandla Town. The defendant was in occupation of one of the rooms in the ground-floor as a tenant of the plaintiffs. The accommodation had been let to him for non- residential purpose and for cycle shop in the same.

(2.) In the suit in question brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant they sought his eviction from the accommodation under Clause (f) of sub- section (1) of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It was stated by the plaintiffs that one of them i.e. plaintiff No. 1 Vinod Kumar started doing business as a P.W.D. contractor sometime back and that the accommodation was required bona fide for the purpose of keeping his office in the same.

(3.) On an appreciation of evidence produced in the case, it was found by the trial Court that plaintiff No. 1 Vinod Kumar had started doing business as a P.W D. contractor. It was also found by the trial Court that in connection with the abovesaid business the said plaintiff bona fide required to have an office in the town and that apart from the suit accommodation he was not in occupation of any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in the town. The trial Court, accordingly, passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant under Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. In the appeal, the first appellate Court concurred with the view of the relevant evidence taken by the trial Court and affirmed the decree passed by it. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present second appeal in this Court.