SHANTI DEVI Vs. DWARKA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 5-8-94, passed by IX ADJ, Bhopal in C. A. No. 47-A/92, affirming the judgment-decree dated 16-4-92, passed by II Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in C. S. No. 138-A/85, plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.

(2.) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law :-

(3.) PLAINTIFF Late Shanti Devi was owner of suit shop No. 7, House No. 11, New Market, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. Admittedly defendant/respondent remained a tenant of Late Shanti Devi on monthly rent of Rs. 350/- per month. Plaintiff Late Shanti Devi instituted C. S. No. 138-A/85 seeking eviction of tenant- defendant/respondent under Section 12 (1) (b), (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') on the ground that the tenant unlawfully sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of suit shop in favour of one Darshanlal and the suit shop is bonafide required by her son Dr. K. Kukreja for opening a clinic of his own and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation available in the city. The suit was resisted by the tenant-defendant/respondent stating inter alia that the suit shop never been sub-let or parted with possession in favour of Darshanlal, in fact Darshanlal was looking after the business of defendant/respondent as an employee. The suit shop is not bonafide required for opening a clinic by Dr. K. Kukreja. The Civil Judge in C. S. No. 138-A/85 vide judgment dated 16-4-92 held that grounds seeking eviction under Section 12 (1) (b), (f) of the Act have not been proved. Therefore, dismissed the suit of plaintiff Late Shanti Devi. Being aggrieved, she preferred C. A. No. 47-A/92 before IX ADJ, Bhopal. The Court below held that tenant-defendant/respondent in fact sublet the suit shop to one Darshanlal. However, the sub- tenancy remained only for a period during 1976 to 1981. Therefore, there being no sub-tenancy on the date of institution of suit (23-11-83), affirming the judgment-decree passed by Civil Judge, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 5-8-94. Being aggrieved, plaintiff Late Shanti Devi preferred the present appeal under Section 100, CPC. Since plaintiff late Shanti Devi died, on the basis of registered will dated 19-8-99, son Dr. K. Kukreja has been brought on record.