ASLAM KHAN Vs. RAJKUMARI SAHU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2017 passed by Twenty Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 304/2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2016 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 393-A/2014 decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff for the need of her son Ajay Sahu to open a restaurant on the ground floor consisting of suit shop.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the property in question has been succeeded from the mother of the plaintiff namely Smt. Summa Bai who had rented the suit premises to late Abdul Gaffar. It is also not in dispute that the defendants are the successors of Abdul Gaffar in the tenancy being legal heirs. It is also not in dispute that prior to death, Summa Bai filed a suit seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need but on account of her death, the said suit was dismissed as abated. The plaintiff being successor of Summa Bai became the owner to the suit property and the tenants who are the legal heirs of erstwhile tenant Abdul Sattar continued as tenants.

(3.) Now the plaintiff filed a suit seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need of the suit premises Shop No. 7 situated at H. No. 424, Lakshmi Talkies Road, Bal Vihar Chouraha, Bhopal. It is pleaded that the suit shop is required for her son to start a restaurant inter alia contending that a Hotel is already running in the same premises on the first floor and other floors, however, in order to provide food facility to the persons staying in the said Hotel, there is a dire necessity of a restaurant, therefore, pleading bonafide need, the suit was filed. It was also pleaded that certain alterations are also required to be made in the said premises to start Hotel (restaurant) business, which will be done as per the modified plan produced along with the plaint. It is also pleaded that the alternative accommodation available at House No. 23, Ghoda Nakkas, is on distance, which do not satisfy the need as pleaded, hence it cannot be termed as reasonably suitable alternative accommodation to the plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, it is urged that the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) in respect of the suit premises may be directed.