CHAITANYA DEV Vs. KAMAL CHITRA BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC involves the following substantial question of law :

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for appellant's eviction from the suit shop where the appellant is carrying on his tailoring business since 1956, on the ground that the tenanted shop is required for opening first class ticket window for his cinema house. He pleaded that there is no separate first class ticket window for which the Sub-Divisional Officer, from time to time, has warned him and issued notice. Therefore, under such circumstances, he had to file the suit for appellant's eviction from the suit premises. The appellant/defendant registered the suit on the ground that the respondent has invented a device to get the appellant evicted from the suit shop. As a matter of fact, under the garb of notice, the respondent's intention is to increase the rent. In support of his contention, the appellant has given reference of an earlier Civil Suit No. 220 of 1972 filed by the respondent/plaintiff wherein a need was shown to open a cloth shop and that suit was dismissed by Civil Judge, Class I, Burhanpur on 31.1.75.

(3.) THE respondent has filed documentary evidence to prove that the suit accommodation is required for opening a separate window for booking of first-class cinema tickets. The lower appellate Court has elaborately dealt with the point in issue discussing all the materials on record including the documentary and oral evidence to the effect that the suit accommodation is required bonafide by the respondent.