MOHAMMAD JAMIL Vs. MANSUR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is at the instance of defendant/tenant challenging the concurrent judgments of the two courts below. Trial court by judgment dated 17/5/2013 had decreed the suit for eviction being CS No. 39 -A/2009 and the first appellate court by dismissing the civil appeal No. 23 -A/2013 by judgment dated 13/1/2014 has affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

(2.) The respondent/landlord had filed suit for eviction pleading that appellant is the tenant in the suit premises and that respondent is the trained electrician having license to do electric motor binding, repairing, electric fitting and contract work and was earlier doing business in rented shop at 216 near Khajur Wali Masjid Ujjain but on the death of its owner the LRs have got the premises vacated in 2008 and the respondent had taken another shop from Balibai for 11 months. The said period has expired and Balibai has also died and her LRs are asking the appellant to vacate the premises. Hence the suit premises was required for bonafide need of his business. The arrears of rent from 1/6/2009 were also claimed. The suit was opposed by appellant by denying the bonafide need and also raising the plea that respondent has alternative suitable accommodation. Both the courts below have concurrently held in favour of the respondent/landlord.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submits that the rent receipt Ex.P -3 is forged document and has wrongly been relied upon by the courts below and that two shops belonging to appellant were given on rent to Chetana Tailoring and Saluja Oil which indicates that respondent has no bonafide need and on earlier occasion while remanding the matter back to the trial court by order dated 31/8/2012 the respondent's cross - objection for grant of decree under Section 12(1)(f) of MP Accommodation Control Ac was rejected. Hence the trial court could not have granted the decree on that ground.