1n Second Appeal by the landlady the High Court did number agree with the Appellate Court and found that the need of the landlady was genuine and bona fide as the shop in dispute was number sufficient for four machines and two or three servants.
After discussing the evidence it found that the business of landladys son was very poor and number growing at all.
May be the wall in between the two rooms has been removed and entire has been companyverted into a big shop.
Defence was equally vehement.
Her claim was accepted by the Trial Court as necessity was valid and the landlady had a right to reside in any part of the house.
But it appears unnecessary to examine it as out of various aspects highlighted one was sufficiency of accommodation with tenant even if he vacated the shop in dispute.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.
Principal attack was on jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with finding of fact in second appeal.
But the tenant has two shops each with spacious accom modation facing the road and the landladys son has one with irregular dimension of 109in front and 3.8 in back in a lane in most unhygienic companyditions, in front of which many doors of latrines of other houses open.
1988 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. This tenants appeal is directed against order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceedings arising out of Section 12 1 f of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
17 of 1985.
In 1976, the landlady filed an application for eviction under Section 12 1 f of the Act as the accommodation in occupation of appellant was required bona fide for companytinu ing tailoring business of her son who was doing it since 1970 in a small room of the same premises in the lane which was both unsuitable and inadequate.
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.
3488 of 1988.
L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda for the Appellants.
Financial difficulty apart the tenant admittedly has number only this shop with 276 on one side and 20 on the other, but another shop of approximately the same dimension.
In appeal various objections raised on behalf of tenant, namely, feasibility of shifting business to one more room in the house or that additional accommodation was available were repelledIt was further found that landladys husband had a flourishing tailoring business during British days but it suffered setback and he later became blind.
Therefore, the accommoda tion in his possession was number at all insufficient and unsuitability was also number proved.
