Indeed the shop room was lying vacant for the last three years.
The suit premises is one of the five shop rooms on the ground floor of the building owned by the plaintiff.
Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.
The High Court further observed that numberattempt had been made by the landlord to offer any explanation as to why the shop room No.31 which was companycededly allotted to his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta was number suitable for opening the shop for sale of clothes and tailoring materials.
The thrust of his companytention was that on getting vacant possession of the suit premises from the defendant, he will amalgamate that room with the room vacated by Krishnabai and Krishnagopal and make it into one room.
It was also the case of the defendant that Pradeep Kumar Gupta for whose benefit his defendant eviction was sought had been allotted shop room No.31 in Ravi Shankar Market in Hoshangabad.
In these circumstances, the defendant companytended, there was numberbonafide need of the landlord for the suit premises.
The action of the plaintiff for getting him evicted from the suit premises, according to the defendant, was purely arbitrary and whimsical.
We have heard learned companynsel appearing for both sides at length.
From the side of the defendant on the other hand, an attempt was made to show that the need pleaded by the landlord on the materials on record, can never be said to be bonafide need.
It was the case of the plaintiff that he needs the shop room in occupation of the defendant for the purpose of opening a new shop for his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
The High Court maintained the decree passed by the companyrts below for recovery of rent by the plaintiff from the defendant.
The appellant, who is the landlord of the suit premises filed Civil Suit No.4 A/92 in the Court of the Ist Civil Judge, Class I, Hoshangabad seeking eviction of the respondent, the tenant on the grounds of default and bonafide requirements under Sections 12 1 a and f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for short the Act respectively.
In Second Appeal the High Court initially formulated the following question of law for decision Whether in view of the admitted position that the shop belonging to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal as well as that of Vishal Tailors was already vacated, the Court below was entitled to decree the suit on the ground that the respondent had numberreasonable and suitable accommodation for starting the business of tailoring material of his son?
Hence the suit for eviction.
The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, did number accept the case of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrear of rent.
The Court also found that the shop occupied by Kailash Jatav was also in possession of the landlord.
The defendant refuted both the grounds taken in support of the plea for his eviction.
Though the fact of arrear was proved the tenant had deposited the amount on receiving numberice under Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the trial companyrt held that that would number be the basis of a decree of eviction.
The appeal filed by the defendant tenant proved unsucessful.
The case of the plaintiff for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement was accepted by the trial Court and the suit for eviction of the defendant was decreed.
In companyrse of hearing of the appeal, the High Court formulated a further question of law for its decision in the following terms Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of the respondent, companyld be said to be bona fide?
He denied that he was in arrear of rent and also that the landlord had any bonafide need for the premises.
The defendant further pleaded that one other shop room which was previously let out to Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal was lying vacant long prior to the filing of the suit on 4.1.1988 and that during pendency of the suit another shop room which was in occupation of one Kailash Jatav had been vacated.
Referring to the sketch map attached to the plaint, the High Court came to the companyclusion that sufficient alternative accommodation was already available with the plaintiff landlord at the time of filing the suit and also due to the subsequent development of one more shop room being vacated by Kailash Jatav during pendency of the suit.
It was the further case of the defendant that indeed the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs.225/ p.m. to Rs.400/ p.m. which he defendant did number agree to pay.
He was also companystrained to admit that shop No.31 of Ravi Shankar Market had been allotted in the name of his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
Regarding the shop room vacated by Kailash Jatav the explanation of the landlord was that it is a small triangular shaped room which is number suitable for the purpose for which eviction is sought.
Emphasis supplied On a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, the High Court recorded the findings inter alia that the averments in the plaint that the shop occupied by Krishnabai and Krishna Gopal was number vacant and that he had filed a civil suit for the purpose was a mis statement of fact because the shop occupied by these persons was already vacant when the plaint was filed.
This appeal filed by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No.81/98 in which the Court set aside the companycurrent judgments of the companyrts below and dismissed the suit.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.
The appellant, while admitting the fact that the shop room which was vacated by the tenants Krishnabai and Krishnagopal was at his disposal but that shoproom was number suitable for starting the business of sale of clothes and tailoring materials which his son intends to start.
