KAILASH CHANDRA VISHWAKARMA Vs. SAROJANI MAHULEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's second appeal who has lost from the First Appellate Court as the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit has been reversed and the appeal has been allowed by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) A suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was filed by plaintiff / respondent to start the business which shall be carried out by her elder son, husband or by herself. In para 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded that harishanker Mahuley, husband of the plaintiff was serving in National newsprint Paper Mills, Nepanager and he retired on 30th November, 1988. Her elder son Vikram is also unemployed. By demonstrating these circumstances to the defendant, for several times it was requested to him to vacate the suit shop. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff that size of her family is big and since there is no source of income she herself, her husband and her son would carry on business in the suit shop.

(3.) THE appellant/defendant filed written statement refuting the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that in fact the real intention of the landlady is to get the rent enhanced and by clothing the so-called need, under the false pretext of bona fide need, the present suit has been filed.