It decreed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and also for past and future damages Rs.
110 of 1976 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 28 11 75 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal 495 of 1975.
A Bhojnalaya was being run in the shop by the tenant.
150/ for October, November and December, 1972 and damages for the months of January and February, 1973 Rs.
The case proceeded to trial on the admitted footing that the business which the plaintiff wanted to shift to the suit shop was his business.
The plaintiffs father was running a sweetmeat shop in a rented premise the rent of which was Rs.
Sometime later the original tenant, the predecessor in interest of the defendants, also died.
On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 11 8 1975 took a companytrary view and held in favour of the plaintiff.
125/ per month damages to be payable on and from 1 1 1973 until delivery of the vacant possession to the plaintiff.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff did number require the suit shop bona fide for his personal necessity.
225/per month as also future damages till the delivery of possession.
The plaintiffs father died in 1970.
He had paid rent upto September, 1972.
After the death of the original tenant, the defendants became the tenants of the suit shop.
The High Court has affirmed this decree.
225/per month.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
31 12 1972.
It was let out by the father of the plaintiff to the husband of defendant number 1 and the father of the other defendants in the year 1951 at a monthly rent of Rs.
The suit for eviction was filed on 8 3 1973 claiming therein a decree for eviction chiefly on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiff, for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.
Mrs Leila Seth, A. T. Patra and Praveen Kumar for the Appellants.
The plaintiff served a numberice on the defendants terminating the companytractual tenancy w.e.f.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed by the First Appellate Court.
The demised property is a shop situated at a place in the District of Hoshangabad.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellants and respondent number 2 were the defendants in a suit filed by plaintiff respondent number 1 for eviction And other reliefs in respect of the suit premises.
The second appeal filed by the defendant in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed.
S. Chatterjee for Respondent No.
V. Goswami for Respondent No.
