LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-6

SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR GOYAL

Decided On June 16, 2015
SUNIL AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
VINOD KUMAR GOYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission.

(2.) PRESENT second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant -tenant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved from the judgment dated 7/10/2013 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 21A/13 against partly dismissal of the appeal whereby the decree passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 22/3/2013 passed in C.S. No. 6A/12 against the appellant to the extent of ground under Section 12 (1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short the Act) was confirmed but rest part of it was reversed and set aside on the ground under Section 12(1)(k) of the Act.

(3.) SHRI K.S. Tomar, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant has argued that the impugned findings recorded by the trial court as well as learned first appellate court suffer from perversity as the evidence has not been appreciated in proper perspective. It is submitted that the courts -below erred to consider the fact that previously three shops were sold out by the plaintiff which shows that the plaintiff's need was not projected on bona fide ground. It was also not considered by the courts below that notice Ex. P/3 was given by one Gopaldas for running his own business who is brother of the plaintiff. Nowhere, it was mentioned in the notice Ex. P/3 that the suit shop was required for personal necessity of the plaintiff himself. It is also pointed out by the Sr. Advocate that in a claim preferred by the respondent/plaintiff Vinod Kumar Goyal under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the statement has been made by the claimant/plaintiff Vinod Kumar Goyal that they are four brothers in all who are residing jointly. Same statement was also given by the plaintiff in this case before the courts -below but this aspect was not considered at both the stages. An attention of this court has been drawn on the application preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking the said facts on record, which is still pending consideration.