SONABAI Vs. ARVIND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellants having lost from the two Courts below have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit for eviction was filed against the respondent/defendant on the ground available under Section 12(l)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the allegation that the disputed shop was bonafidely required by plaintiff/deceased Rameshwardas for his own flour-mill business, stating that he had no other suitable alternative accommodation of his own for the stated business.

(3.) IN this Court after that the death of the plaintiff/appellant Rameshwardas his legal representatives have been brought on record, but the suit allegations continue to remain as they were. The question, therefore, is whether the alleged requirement, after the death of the plaintiff Rameshwardas, who filed the suit with the clear averments that the suit shop was required by him for his own business of flour-mill does not survive after his death ?