TARAMAL Vs. LAXMAN SEWAK SUREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant, is directed against a decree of the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 24th March, 1967, affirming the judgment and decree of the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, dated 19th November, 1966.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are these : The plaintiffs initiated this action for eviction of the defendant from the 2 front rooms, at 1131, Napier Town, Jabalpur, which were let out to him for business purposes, on the ground that they now require the same for locating a lawyer's office for Kumari Permeshwari Surey, who is a member of there family and a practising advocate of this Court. The plaintiffs have admittedly their residential house in the same compound where the suit premises are situated, but it is far removed from the road being somewhat in the interior and it is not suitable for locating an office. The suit premises are detached from the residential house of plaintiffs. Apart from denying that the alleged need is a genuine requirement, the defendant asserts that the need is a residential need. On these facts, the Court~ below have upheld the plaintiff's claim and granted to them a decree for ejectment.

(3.) THE main point urged before me is one of principle, i.e., whether the word "business" in section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, include, the practice of a profession. It is contended by the appellant that the word 'business connotes a trading commercial activity and, therefore, clause (f) has no application where the landlord is carrying on a profession or needs the premises for a member of hi, family for a like purpose. The contention is devoid of substance and cannot be accepted for reasons I shall presently state.