KANTA GUPTA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff landlord challenging judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002 passed by Second Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in civil suit No. 36-A/00 whereby the Court below has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that plaintiff is owner of a house situated at Roshni Ghar Road, near Sanatan Dharm Mandir, Lashkar, Gwalior. Defendant is a tenant in the said house paying rent at the rate of Rs. 5,760/- per month. The tenancy starts from 27th of each month. Said premises are required by the plaintiff for starting business of her major son Jitendra Gupta. For that purpose plaintiff has no suitable accommodation in the city of Gwalior. Para 4 of the plaint is subsequently added by stating that Jitendra Gupta wants to start business of departmental stores and a showroom. At present Jitendra Gupta is looking after the cold storage business of his father. There are number of employees for conducting the business of cold storage and, therefore, he wants to start his own business.

(3.) ISSUE No. 2 is not relevant for the decision of this appeal. Main question which is to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved that she bona fide requries the suit accommodation for starting the business of her son Jitendra Gupta. For proving this fact plaintiff has examined herself as PW 1. In para 1 of her statement she has stated that she has asked the defendant to vacate the premises as she requires the same for starting a retail counter showroom for her son. Suit premises are situated in the market place and is suitable for carrying the business. In para 4 of her statement she has stated that her son Jitendra Gupta is 35 years of age. Jitendra Gupta has two issues and he is not doing any business. He is looking after the cold storage at Ganga Malanpur which is 2 kms. away from the Municipal limits. She further said that the work of the cold storage is looking after by the employees and Jitendra Gupta merely supervise the work. He wants to do his separate business. The business of cold storage is that of his father. In para 9 of her statement she has stated that Jitendra Gupta wants to start business of readymade clothes and retail showroom. She has admitted that Jitendra Gupta has no experience of said business. In para 18 she has stated that except the suit accommodation which is in possession of Bank, entire building is in occupation of her husband who is carrying on his business in the remaining portion of the building. In para 19 she has also admitted the fact that the cold storage is owned by her son Jitendra Gupta. Thus, there are material contradictions in her statement and that pleaded in the plaint. In the plaint she has alleged that Jitendra Gupta wants to start business of departmental stores whereas in her statement she has come with the case that Jitendra Gupta wants to start the business of readymade clothes and retail showroom. Furthermore in the pleading she has stated that storage is owned by her husband while in para 19 she admits that cold storage is owned by her son Jitendra Gupta. In the plaint it is averred that Jitendra Gupta is merely looking business on behalf of his father. This statement is also quite contradictory with the statements made in para 19 of PW 1. She has further stated that the business of her husband is that of a Cold storage and Spring. She has nowhere stated in her statement that her husband is carrying on his business in the part of the building occupied by him. The photographs filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex. P-12 and P-13 shows that there are six channel gates in the premises in occupation of her husband. Plaintiff has not filed any document to show that which business is carried on by her husband on the said premises and what is the exact area of the said premises.