The answer to these questions recorded by the High Court is that the appellant failed to prove all the ingredients of Section 12 1 f of the Act and his claim that he bonafide required the suit premises, cannot be sustained as he suppressed the fact that he was in possession of an alternative vacant accommodation in the same building.
It is against those judgments and decrees of the High Court, the present appeals are filed.
The respondents plea was one of denial of bonafide requirement of the landlord.
At the stage of final hearing of the Second Appeals, the following additional substantial question of law was formulated Whether respondent has proved all the ingredients of Section 12 1 f of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in order to get a decree of eviction against the appellant?
The High Court, at the time of admission of the Second Appeals, framed the following question of law for determination Whether the Court below was justified in granting a decree under Section 12 1 f of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case?
On 2.5.85, the appellant filed two suits in the Court of IInd Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, against the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of his unemployed son for establishing a Provision Store under Section 12 1 f of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for short the Act .
Judge, Raipur.
The learned District Judge, on appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant had proved bonafide requirement for establishing a business for his son.
Dissatisfied with that judgment and decree of the Trial Court the appellant filed two appeals in the Court of 1st Additional Distt.
After framing necessary issues and companysidering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bonafide requirement and observed that he had only a desire to establish the business for his son.
He stated that he had numberalternative reasonable suitable number residential accommodation in the city of Raipur for the said purpose.
Consequently both the suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by a Common judgment on January 27, 1987.
408 409 of 1989.
However, he recorded the finding that the appellant had numberreasonable suitable accommodation in the Raipur city.
The tenant questioned the companyrectness of the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge before the High Court in Second Appeal Nos.
23/507 and 508 situated at Azad Chowk Handipara, Raipur hereinafter referred to as suit premises .
In that view of the matter he allowed the appeals and decreed the suits against the respondent on September 6,1989.
408/89 and 409/89 passed on 9.7.1997, The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of two shops in house Nos.
S. Mohammed Quadri, J. These appeals, by special leave, are from the judgments and decrees of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal Nos.
The High Court thus allowed the appeals of the respondent and dismissed both the suits of the appellant for the same reasons but by separate judgments dated 9.7.97.
