The High Court in the second appeal framed the following two questions which according to the High Court were substantial questions of law.
2000 1 SCR 77 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. This appeal at the instance of defendant tenant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.98 passed by the High Court of P. at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No.
On these grounds the learned Single Judge set aside both the judgments and decrees of the companyrts below.
Whether in view of the admission of the respondent the trial companyrt wrongly placed onus on the appellant to prove that the alternative accommodation is suitable for the business of the respondent?
Whether in view of the fact that the respondent admitted that there are number of plots, houses and shops in his possession, the lower appellate companyrt companyld number have decreed the suit of the respondent under Section 12 l f of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?
The learned single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the Courts below had wrongly placed the onus on the defendant tenant of proving that alternative accommodation was number suitable for the plaintiff landlord and that companyrts below had ignored the fact that plaintiff landlord had admitted that he and his father were in possession of certain shops and had number stated why these alternative shops were number suitable for their business or they were vacant.
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 12 l f of M.P. Accommoda tion Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement as he required the suit premises for opening a show room of Indo Suzuki motor cycles and TVS 50 mopeds for which he was appointed sub dealer.
The lower appellate companyrt after companysider ing the evidence on record upheld the above finding of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant tenant.
55/98 reversing the judgment and decree of two companyrts below passed in favour of the appellant.
The trial companyrt came to the finding that the plaintiff landlord was in bona fide need of the disputed premises for doing his own business and for this purpose numberother suitable shop was available to him in the city of Chattarpur.
We have heard Mr. A.K. Sanghi, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
The appellant herein shall be described as plaintiff landlord and respondent as defendant tenant hereinafter for the sake of companyvenience.
