RAM GULAM Vs. MURLIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by plaintiff/landlord and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14/10/1982 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge. Khandwa in Civil Appeal No. 62 -A/8 arising out of judgment and decree dated 9/10/1980 passed by III Civil Judge. Class -II. Khandwa in Civil suit No. 95 -A/80.

(2.) THE case of the appellant was that he was the owner and landlord in relation to suit -premises. which was in occupation of the respondent as his tenant.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated pleadings in para -4 of the plaint and has illegally and unjustifiably held that the appellant was not entitled to benefit of section 12(1) (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act as the suitability of the new house for residential purposes was not specifically pleaded. According to the learned counsel. since the appellant had pleaded that the new house was being used by the respondent for his residence, the fact that it was suitable for residential purposes was implicit. The learned counsel further submitted that since the need for starting business of appellant's son Arun Kumar has been found to be real and bona fide, a decree for eviction of whole of the suit -premises should have been passed. Reliance is placed on Jeevanlal Kalabhai v. Anant Govind 1972 M.P.L.J. 113. Relying on Mohanlal Mintoolal and another v. Hakimsingh Gopal Singh and another 1980 M.P.L.J. 361. it is submitted that at least the non -residential portion of this house should have got vacated to satisfy the non -residential bona fide need. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the trial Court has, on consideration of evidence on record, clearly and specifically held that the tenancy was for residential purpose only and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get the suit -premises vacated for non -residential purpose. As regards section 12(1)(i) of the Act, it is submitted that the appellant was bound to plead that the new house was suitable for residential purpose and since the same has not been pleaded, no evidence could be looked into. It is further submitted that the respondent has sold the new house during the pendency of the appeal and. therefore, section 12(1)(i) of the Act has no application.