MOHAN Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/2014 by the I Additional District Judge, Khandwa, arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.04.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2012 by the II Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-II, Khandwa.

(3.) The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the appellants under the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was contended by the respondents/plaintiffs that the demise premises let out for the non-residential purposes was required bonafidely to start the business of the son of respondent/plaintiff. It was further contended that the rent of the demise premises was not paid by the appellants despite the demand. The suit was contested by the appellants on the grounds that earlier a suit was filed for bonafide need of the non-residential accommodation for the purposes of starting business of yet another son. The said suit was contested by the appellants and was dismissed, which decree was affirmed by this Court as well. It is, thus, contended that for the alleged need of another son, the suit could not have been filed as the same would be hit by principle of res judicata. Further ground raised was that there was alternative suitable accommodation available to the respondents/plaintiffs for starting the business of son and, therefore, the need was not bonafide. It was further contended that necessary parties, who were to be impleaded in the suit, were not impleaded as parties and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties.