REETA GUPTA Vs. MAHESH PRASAD RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below holding that a relationship of tenant and landlord exist between the predecessor of the present appellant and the respondent landlord. The need of the respondent landlord was found to be established in terms of section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The claim of the landlord that there was sub-letting by the tenant was negatived. It is against the above findings, the tenant has preferred this second appeal. The facts in brief be noticed as under :

(2.) IT was the case of the respondent landlord that one Brundavan Lal Gupta son of Raghunath Prasad was inducted as a tenant in pursuance of a rent note dated 1st of August, 1976. This is exhibit P/4. The plaintiff wanted the premises in terms of section 12 (1) (f ). The need projected by him was that the premises are required by his son Ashok Kumar. This Ashok Kumar had obtained degree of M. Com. He was unable to find source of livelihood. He was said to be unemployed. He accordingly wanted to set-up his son in a trade. The son was keen to start a general store in the premises said to be in the occupation of tenant. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has concluded that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant. It is also concluded that need in terms of section 12 (1) (f) stand established.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued.-