BHOGILAL JAIN Vs. ARVIND SUGANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's appeal filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction dated 18.8.2007 passed in Civil First Appeal No.73/07 by the 6th Additional District Judge, Indore confirming the decree of eviction passed under section 12 (1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) by the trial Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for elucidation are that the plaintiff respondent had filed the suit for eviction in respect of his suit shop situated at the ground floor bearing No.62, Cloth Market, Indore against the present appellants, on the ground of non -payment of rent under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, under section 12(1)(c) since the rented premises were being used for the purpose other than for which it was let out which was being used as god -own contrary to the conditions and under section 12(1)(d) of the Act, since for more than six months the tenanted suit shop was closed and not being used, more importantly, under S.12(1)(f) of the Act on the ground of bona fide need, the plaintiff needed the suit premises for setting up his own. business of selling cloth and since there was no other alternative accommodation available to the plaintiff of his own, he required the suit shop. The appellants -defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent -plaintiff was carrying on business of incense and scent for decades as his ancestors also carried on the same business in the said shop situated at Rajwada, Indore and denied the genuineness of the requirement and stated that the respondent -plaintiff had also the possession of the house No.82, Pandharinath, Indore (Ada Bazar) as well as 27, Kanungo Bakhal, Indore and it could not be said that there was no other alternative accommodation in the possession of the respondent -plaintiff. Moreover, the bona fide need was also denied and stated that the eviction suit had been filed with the ulterior motive for enhancing the rent and the suit was filed on mala fide ground, prayed for rejecting the eviction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Shri Saraf has urged that the appellate Court had erred in upholding the findings of the trial Court regarding bona fid~ need of the plaintiff, when there was suppression of the fact that the plaintiff was carrying on business of the oil and incense at 13, Rajwada Chowk for several years and there was no intention regarding the same in the plaint or affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 of the CPC.