NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel appearing for the landlord has made a statement. According to him, that appellant is no longer in possession, of the disputed premises. He states that possession of premises is with him. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant however, is unable to say anything on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, I have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

(2.) A suit for eviction was filed under Section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The ground for eviction which ultimately prevailed with the trial Court was that the appellant had sub-let the premises to one Mohammad Ismile. It was also found that a case of bona fide requirement was made out. It was held that the premises were in fact required for the son of the landlord.

(3.) THE First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plea regarding bona fide requirement was not made out. However, a finding was recorded that the premises were in fact sub-let. It is against the above finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred.