ASIF ALI Vs. RAHANDOMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Rahando-inal, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, Asif Ali, from the suit accommodation on the ground specified in Cl. (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 12 of the MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court dismissed the suit. On an appeal having been filed by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court allowed the same and decreed the suit. It is being aggrieved by it that the defendant has filed the present appeal in this Court.

(2.) It was found by the first appellate Court that the suit accommodation which had been let by the plaintiff to the defendant for a non; residential purpose was required bona fide by the plaintiff for starting his business. It was also found by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff had no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in the town concerned. The said two findings of the first appellate Court are findings of fact and do not suffer from any error of law. In the circumstances, the question of this Court interfering with the said findings in the present second appeal does not arise.

(3.) However, there is one particular aspect of the case which raises an important question of law. The plaintiff had obtained lease of a plot of land from the Municipal Council a few years prior to the institution of the suit. He had built a Tapra (wooden shed) over the said plot of land. It was in respect of the said Tapra that he obtained the abovesaid decree for eviction of the defendant from the first appellate Court on the ground specified in Cl. (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 12 of the Act as mentioned above.