TIRATHRAM BHASIN Vs. SHIV SHANKAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission. This appeal is filed by the tenant challenging judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent landlord under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') is decreed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit for ejectment against the present appellants alleging that the plaintiff is owner of house situated near old High Court, Lashkar. This house is purchased by the plaintiff on 4.9.1985. The defendant-appellant is tenant in the said house paying rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. According to the plaintiff defendant has paid rent upto 3.9.2000. Present suit was filed on the ground of section 12 (10 (f) of the Act and other grounds. However, as the two Courts below have decreed the suit only on the ground of section 12 (1) (f) of the Act, this Court need not go into other questions.

(3.) FIRST contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that the need alleged by the plaintiff is not a need in praesenti. According to the counsel as long as accommodation which is in possession of other tenant is not vacated, the present plaintiff cannot use the accommodation vacated by him for starting the reception counter as reception counter will be required only when he starts the business of furniture which can be started only when the other tenant vacates the premises. It is urged that at this stage no-one can see how much time shall be required for vacating the suit premises, hence the present suit be dismissed as the need is not pressing need or a praesenti need. For this purpose counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment of apex Court in the case of Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, 2001 (2) JLJ 196 = (2001) 5 SCC 705. In para 15 of the said judgment the apex Court has laid down that the need of the plaintiff must be in praesenti. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the plaintiff in the present case has not only filed the suit against the present defendant but has also filed the suit against the other tenant if cannot be said that the need of the present plaintiff is not the praesenti need because plaintiff has taken simultaneous action for ejectment against the two tenants which shows that he requires both the accommodation for starting his business. Only because trial in the other suit is delayed it cannot be held that the need of the present plaintiff does not exists today.