BALDEV Vs. RAMNIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the appeal :

(2.) THERE is a concurring finding of fact of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the defendant tenant has started using the verandah of the suit accommodation as a tea shop. Two rooms of this accommodation are being used by the defendant for residence. The accommodation was initially let out for residential purpose only. By opening the tea shop the defendant 'has done an act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy' within the meaning of section 12( l)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).