RAKHAV LAL Vs. SARDAR KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant/respondent, mainly, with the allegation that the defendant/respondent is a tenant in a non-residential premises belonging to the plaintiff/appellant on a monthly rent @ Rs. 190/- under an tenancy. Plaintiff/appellant was earlier engaged in the business of animal feed which has been handed over by him to his two major sons. Sons of the plaintiff/appellant closed the business of animal feed and started their business of readymade garments in the premises, earlier occupied for the business of animal feed. Besides it, a small godown has been got vacated from a tenant, namely, Mohan singh, which is being used by the plaintiffs sons for storing their stock of readymade garments. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant is carrying on the business of money-lending. However, he has no other non-residential accommodation wherein he may run the business of money-lending. He advances money to persons, who casually meet him. He has no vacant premises of his own where he may regularly sit and carry on the business of money-lending. Plaintiff/appellant, therefore, bona fide requires the suit premises to continue the business of money-lending.

(2.) ALTHOUGH, the suit was based also on ground under section 12 (l) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, but the same having been negatived by the learned Lower Appellate Court and further in the absence of a substantial question of law having been formulated on this ground, it is not necessary to burden this judgment with the facts relating to the said ground.

(3.) DEFENDANT/respondent denied the claim of the plaintiff/appellant by filing a written statement. He inter alia stated that the suit premises is a godown and its rent is very much less in comparison to current rent. Plaintiff/appellant is leading a retired life and his real intention is to seek eviction and to let it out at much more enhanced rate. This apart, it has been pleaded that the house of the plaintiff/appellant is very big which consists of ample accommodation. The premises vacated by the tenant Mohan Singh could well be utilised by the plaintiff. Thus, the alleged requirement of the plaintiff/appellant has been disputed on all possible counts.