This order was challenged by the respondent in a review petition which was dismissed by the trial companyrt.
On being aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt, the respondent landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court.
On 12.5.2003 a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Bhopal under Section 12 1 f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, stating the bonafide need for the use of the accommodation by his elder son.
On the other hand, if the tenant wants to vacate the shop he will have to give prior numberice of 6 months to the landlord and the landlord will pay back Rs.4,75,000/ to the tenant.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the High Court.
This document was affixed with a numberarial stamp of Rs.4/ .
arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.12573 of 2006 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted.
On a dispute being arisen between the respondent landlord, the original tenant Maganlal Jain and the appellant herein, an agreement was executed on 28.3.1988 by the respondent landlord and the appellant subsequent tenant , whereby the landlord tenanted the shop to the appellant on payment of an advance amount of Rs.4,75,000/ which was received by the landlord in cash in front of the witnesses.
The agreement further provided that in case the landlord requires eviction of the tenant from the shop he will have to give numberice of 6 months to the tenant and will also refund the payment of Rs.4,75,000/ to the tenant.
It was the case of the appellant tenant that the original companyy of the agreement which was with him was stolen and thus he was unable to produce the original document dated 28.3.1988, but was in possession of a photostat companyy of the agreement and made a prayer for receipt of the photocopy of the agreement as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The facts necessary for deciding the question involved in the case are that one Maganlal Jain was the original tenant of Prakash Chand Malviya, the respondent landlord.
Maganlal Jain had given the shop to the appellant for carrying out the business.
