TAIYABALI Vs. MOHSINALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 10th Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in Civil First Appeal No. 9-A of 86, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.12.85 passed by the 6th Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in C.S. No. 237-A 82 was confirmed.

(2.) THE plaintiff case, in short, was that the plaintiff Mohsinali is residing in a tenanted accommodation. His landlord is pressing hard to evict him thereon. Therefore, he bonafide requires the suit accommodation for his residence (i.e. plaintiff No. 1) and his family members and he has no house of his own for this purpose in the city of Indore. It was further alleged that the defendant has purchased House No. 5, South Tukoganj, Indore in the name of his son and wife and the vacant possession of its first floor was obtained by the defendant and that house is suitable for his residence. But the defendant has rented it out and has also not paid rent since 10.9.82. Therefore, the ejectment was sought bonafide need of plaintiff No. 1 as also obtaining another accommodation of their own by the defendant.

(3.) THE trial Court found the suit accommodation is required for the residence of plaintiff No. 1 and his family members for which they have no other house of their own in the city. It also held that the defendant had purchased House No. 5, South Tukoganj in the name of his sons and has rented it out. Therefore, on both these grounds the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of ejectment. Hence a decree was passed against the appellant which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this appeal.