BADRILAL Vs. SITABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) by the Courts below.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted for final hearing and the following substantial question of law was formulated:

(3.) SHRI Mahendra Barania, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant attacked the impugned judgment and decree and contended that no decree under Section 12(1)(f) could be passed on the ground of bona -fide need of the grand son. According to him, so far as eviction under Section 12(1)(f) is concerned, legislature has deliberately left out other members of family, and eviction of a tenant from a nonresidential accommodation is possible only on the ground of bonafide need of landlord and/or his major sons and unmarried daughters for starting or continuing business. He placed reliance on the Division Bench decision reported in : 1974 MPLJ 293 Nandkishore v. Sarjudevi wherein this Court refused to recognize the need of a landlord's spouse for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of Act. Thus, according to him in the instant case, Courts below erred in law in passing the eviction decree against the appellant on the ground of bona -fide need of the grand -son of the plaintiff/landlady.