RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. HITENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by defendant/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27/07/2016 passed in civil appeal No. 54-A/2014 by the Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Harda arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29/04/2014 passed in civil suit No. 18- A/2013 by IInd Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Harda whereby the decree for eviction, possession and arrears of rent has been passed against the appellant. The said judgment and decree has been affirmed by the appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) The facts, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the defendant on the ground that he is the owner of the suit shop. He is presently doing business in the rented premises belonging to his uncle Yatindra Kumar. It is pleaded that the shop in his occupation is not suitable for the business besides that there is no other his shop and further the rented present room is required by his aunty for running a coaching classes thus, he requires the suit premises for his own business bona fide. The suit was filed for eviction under sections 12(1)(c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Act' in short). Combating the averments of the plaintiff and his case, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff does not require the shop in question bona fide and denied his title over the suit shop. It is also pleaded that there is no partition amongst the plaintiff's father and his brothers therefore, he could not claim ownership over the suit shop and some of the shops in the building are vacant. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide need under section 12(1)(f) of the Act but it has been held that no ground under section 12(1)(c) of the Act is made out. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate the provisions of section 12 (1) (f) of the Act and had wrongly proceeded to decide the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit shop on the assumption that the defendant had admitted the fact of his ownership. It is also contended that the courts below did not render any specific finding on the question of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit shop. Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings regarding 'ownership and bona fide need' are perverse as the courts below have failed to take into consideration the deposition of PW-1 in para 10 of the cross examination. It is also contended that the courts below had wrongly shifted the onus on the defendant to prove 'bona fide need' as the plaintiff had failed to discharge initial burden in that regard.