HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI Vs. PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1989 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/87, arising out of judgment and decree dated 27-1-1987 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 29-A/86.

(2.) ONLY the facts relevant for determination of this appeal are stated as follows. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 29-A/86, for ejectment from the suit shop, against the appellant Under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act' ). The relevant pleadings of respondent in respect of ground for eviction under the aforesaid section are given in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. It was stated therein that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the suit shop. He had an unemployed son whose name was Dinesh Kumar. The respondent required the suit shop bona fide for opening a provisions store for his son. The respondent claimed that he had no reasonably suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of his own for starting the business of his son. In this appeal, we are not concerned with other reliefs claimed by the respondent and, therefore, they are not mentioned here.

(3.) THE appellant did not deny that the respondent was the owner of the suit shop. The rest of the allegations made in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint were denied as 'not true and false'. It was further pleaded that suit shop was not required by the respondent bona fide for starting the business of his son. It was denied that Dinesh Kumar was unemployed and he was likely to start the business of running a provisions store. It was emphatically denied that the son of the appellant was not in a position to start a provision store without the suit shop being vacated or his son had no suitable accommodation of his own for starting the business.