RADHEY SHYAM SONI Vs. KAMTA PRASAD SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant under Section 100 C.P.C. The following question of law was formulated by the order dated 29.4.1997 at the time of admission of this appeal : -

(2.) THERE is concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the ground for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been established. It has been found that the suit accommodation had been let out for non -residential purpose i.e. for a shop and it is required bonafide by the plaintiff for carrying on the business of general stores by his two major sons and for this purpose he has no other reasonably suitable non -residential accommodation of his own in the city.

(3.) THE appellants had submitted an application on 21.9.1999 for framing additional substantial questions of law on the points mentioned above. That is not considered necessary as those are covered by the question which has already been formulated by this Court at the time of the admission of the appeal and the answer to that question has been given above. The plaintiff after obtaining possession of the accommodation in pursuance of the decree based under Section 12 (1) (f) the Act can always re -build or re -construct that accommodation according to his requirement and then occupy the same. There is no legal impendiment in doing so.