SUBODH KUMAR JAIN Vs. SURJIT AUTO AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2010 passed by First Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.46-A/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 29/1/2010 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.692-A/2009, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for eviction filed on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Sec. 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Rent Act').

(2.) In short the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for eviction of the rented shop no.4 admeasuring 7'8''x 24' sq.ft. situated on plot No.7, Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Bhopal in which the defendants were inducted as tenants on 25/8/1987 and thereafter a written agreement of tenancy (Ex.P/1) was executed on 8/9/1990 for a period of 5 years i.e. upto 1/9/1995 by previous landlord and owner namely Arjun Das and Shanti Devi, who later on sold the shop on 1/2/2007 to the plaintiff- M/s Surjit Auto Agency. The suit was filed with the allegations that plaintiff is engaged in the business of Bajaj Auto Agency and it is in need of the suit shop for expansion of its existing business of Bajaj Auto Agency, which is being run by the plaintiff on plot nos. 4, 5 and 6 and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff being an unregistered partnership firm and the suit filed by one of the partners is not maintainable in view of Sec. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (in short 'the Act of 1932'). It is also contended that the plaintiff is already in possession of several other alternative vacant accommodations and it does not require the suit shop for its alleged expansion of business. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.