FIDA HUSAIN Vs. ABDUL GAFFOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th June 1972 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Indore, in CRA No. 11A 1971.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellants against the respondent for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The grounds on which ejectment was sought by the plaintiff- appellants and which are now material for the purpose of this appeal as these) grounds alone have been pressed before me are those specified in clauses (c and (f) of section 12(1) of the M P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961' hereinafter called the Act. The plaintiffs' case in that behalf was that the suit accommodation, consisting of a shop which was let out to the defendant for non-residential purposes, was bonafide required by the plaintiffs for starting the business of Hakimuddin and Saifuddin, major sons of plaintiff no. 2 Fidahussain, and that the plaintiffs had no other reasonably suitable non- residential accommodation of their own in their occupation in the city of Indore. The plaintiffs further averred that in the reply dated 24th Feb. 1968 to the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendant had denied that plaintiff no. 2 Fidahussain was the owner of the suit accommodation. It was contended that as the defendant has denied the title of plaintiff no. 2 Fidahussain one of the landlords, the plaintiffs became entitled to the relief of ejectment on the ground specified in section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had made out a case for ejectment on both the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (f) of section 12(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiffs has failed to prove that their requirement of the suit accommodation for the purpose of starting the business of the sons of Fidahussain was bonafide. The lower appellate court also held that the defendant with the lapse of time might have forgotten that he had executed rent-notes in favour of both the plaintiffs and hence it could not be held that he had disclaimed the title of plaintiff no. 2. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Ahmedali died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.