JEVERILAL Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2008 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Indore, directing eviction on the ground of section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act confirming the findings of the trial Court. While learned trial Court by the judgment dated 25.7.2007 decreed the suit on the ground of 12 (1) (a), (b), (f) and (o), however, the judgment and decree of the trial Court under section 12 (1) (a) and (o) was set aside, while affirmed under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) of the Act.

(2.) BECAUSE the judgment and decree of the Courts below passed under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) has been assailed, therefore, the pleadings related to the ground under section 12 (1) (b) and (f) is being referred. Plaintiff's case in brief was that he is an advocate and doing Advocacy profession in the taxation side. The suit premises is of his ownership, and the defendant is the tenant therein, however, required bonafide for doing his Advocacy profession to which no other suitable alternative accommodation is available in the township of Indore. It is further averred that the tenancy of the defendant was written to him but it was given by him on sub -tenancy to Indore Label Company and the said business is going on in the premises, therefore, the decree of ejectment may be passed.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court after going through the statements of the parties found that in the suit shop business in the name of Indore Label Company is running, while the tenancy is in the name of the defendant. It is further held that because the defendant is unable to prove that the Indore Label Company is the business of the defendant, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely presumed that the defendant has sub -let or parted with the possession to the suit shop to the Indore Label Company, accordingly the decree under section 12 (1) (b) has been granted. On the point of bona fide need it was held that plaintiff has fully established his need by the statements of the plaintiff and he is also not having any other suitable alternative accommodation available to him, therefore, decree under section 12 (1) (f) was also passed.