SHANTIPRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SHRINIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's second appeal. An order of eviction was passed against him u/s. 12(1)(c) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. So far as the ground of bonafide requirement is concerned, that would have to be given a fresh look in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711. The Supreme Court in the above case observed :-

(2.) THE tenant has filed an application in which he pointed out :

(3.) THE counsel for the landlord states that he has filed a reply. The reply is not on the record. He has, however, furnished a photo copy of the same, which is being retained on the file. The office has been directed to trace the original reply and place it on the file. As per the reply, the averments made by the tenant have not been denied but an explanation has been given that the properties which have been sold were not fit for residential purposes as these were in dilapidated condition. It has been further stated that the accommodation so vacated is not befitting the status of Anand Kumar s/o Jagdish, nephew of landlord. This is a matter which is required to be gone into and can be decided only after evidence is recorded.