MAHESH PRASAD MITTAL Vs. JAITUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment dated 24/12/2009 passed by IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.10-A/2009 whereby judgment and decree dated 30/10/2009 passed by I Civil Judge Class-II, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.75-A/2008 has been reversed and consequently, the civil suit filed by the present appellant/ plaintiff/ landlord has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of the respondents/ defendants/ tenants mainly on the ground of bonafide requirement of his son to start a medical clinic in the said premise therefore, eviction was sought mainly under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "Act of 1961"). It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is having suit shop situate at Shivpuri which was given on rent to the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 and 3, namely late Shri Jalaluddin @ Rs.30/- per month. After her death, defendants continued tenancy at the rate Rs.50/- per month. The rent of the said premise was due since 01/12/2001. However, after receipt of legal notice, defendants raised the rent up till September, 2008. It was further pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit shop for opening up a clinic for his son Dr. Anurag Mittal for which plaintiff does not have any other vacant shop available in the vicinity of the Municipal Council, Shivpuri therefore, on the basis of bonafide requirement and non-availability of the alternative accommodation, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants filed their written statement and admitted the tenancy. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit shop was taken on rent in year 1962 by late Shri Jalaluddin who died on 04/04/2008. Defendants No.2-Ikramuddin is the tenant in the suit shop, however it was pleaded that he is the brother of Nasimuddin who is left out to be arrayed as defendant being the tenant in the suit shop, therefore, his exclusion as defendant renders the suit liable for dismissal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The submissions of the plaintiff was rebutted by the defendants and it was submitted that son of the plaintiff Dr. Anurag Mittal is having a clinic at Indore where he is working with his wife Dr. Sapna Mittal therefore they are well established at Indore and therefore, it would be difficult for them to leave Indore and start a clinic at Shivpuri. Similarly, alternative accommodation is available to the plaintiff.