JEEVANLAL KALABHAI Vs. ANANT GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant from an accommodation consisting of two Chasmas taken on rent by the appellant for non-residential purposes from the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought the ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he needed the accommodation for the purpose of his own business. The learned Ist Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, who tried the suit found the need of the plaintiff in respect of the accommodation established. He also held that the plaintiff was not in possession of any other suitable accommodation for his own business. Accordingly, he decreed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment.

(2.) THE defendant preferred an appeal before the 1st Additional District judge, Indore. The learned Additional District Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's bona fide requirement was proved only in regard to one Chasma, but that as there was no provision in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for ejectment of a tenant from a part of the tenanted premises and as tenancy could not be split up, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the ejectment of the appellant from both the Chasmas. It is against this decision that the tenant has now preferred this appeal.

(3.) SHRI Bhalerao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to a decree for the ejectment of the appellant from both the chasmas when the learned Additional District Judge found the plaintiff's bona fide requirement established only in regard to one Chasma. It was said that the plaintiff should have been given a decree for the ejectment of the appellant only in regard to one chasma. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on an unreported decision of the late Sharma J. , in Jiwandas v. Guljarilal (Second Appeal No. 138 of 1962, decided on 15th December 1962.) (Gwalior Bench ). It was also submitted that in fact the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for ejectment when he had succeeded in establishing his bona fide requirement only in respect of a part of the accommodation.