HUKUM SINGH KIRAR Vs. ADV ERT THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2017 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.32/2016 whereby learned ADJ rejected the appellant's appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed by Second Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.471-A/2014 whereby learned Civil Judge decreed the respondent's/plaintiff's civil suit filed for ejectment of appellants from shop bearing No.72/2 (76/2) admeasuring 110 sq.ft. located at Galla Bazar Road Jahangirabad, Bhopal (hereinafter referred as "suit shop") on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1)(f) & (b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act"), for arrears of rent @ Rs. 2400/- per month and also future damages till the delivery of possession.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff filed civil suit No.471-A/2014 for seeking relief of eviction on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1), (f) & (b) of the Act averring that the appellant No1/defendant was his tenant in the suit shop which was let out to the appellant No.1 in the year 2005 and rent agreements were also executed from time to time in this regard and last agreement was executed on 25.02.2013. Suit shop was rented out to the appellant no. 1 for running his business but appellant No.1 parted the possession of the suit shop to the appellant No.2. It is also averred that the suit shop is required bonafide by the plaintiff for the purpose of running his business and for this purpose he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city of Bhopal. The rent of suit shop was also due on appellants from March 14. So appellants are directed to give vacant possession of suit shop to him and arrears of rent @ Rs. 2400/- per month and also future damages till the delivery of possession.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants/defendants are real brothers and are running their business of clothes from the suit shop. Rent agreement was also executed. There were no arrears of rent. They further stated that under the rent agreement Rs.2.50 lacs was given as advance by the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is seeking to enhance the advance amount to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, so the respondent/plaintiff filed the civil suit. It is further stated that the respondent/plaintiff has no bona fide need of suit shop for running his business.