1 and 3 regarding the bona fide and real need of the landlord.
30A/1999 allowing the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant.
Parties exchanged the affidavits and examined large number of witnesses in support of their respective claims before the Trial Court.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant tenant was inducted by the respondent landlord on 1.10.1978 in a shop in house No.
After eviction of Dr. Sharma, it was given on rent to the appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.150/ p.m. The rent was enhanced to the tune of Rs.400/ p.m. in 1990, to Rs.500/ p.m in 1991 and further enhanced to Rs.700/ p.m. on 1.3.1995.
After companysidering the evidence on record including increase in rent from time to time and the fact that after evicting Dr. Sharma, Dental Surgeon, in 1978, the landlord in spite of starting his business in the suit premises rented it out to the appellant, came to the companyclusion that need of the landlord was bona fide as he was running his business on a rented premises having a very small area at an unhygienic place i.e. platform on a Nalla.
83, Main Street, Mhow for a number residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ .
However, the relevant issues had been Issue Nos.
The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002, decreed the suit for eviction under Section 12 1 f of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1961 on the ground of bona fide need, however, did number accept the plea of nuisance.
Being aggrieved, the landlord respondent approached the High Court by filing Second Appeal No.726 of 2003 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 25.1.2006.
Hence, this appeal.
Some amount therefrom was to be adjusted towards a part of monthly rent.
on a Nalla.
x 4 ft.
The respondent landlord enhanced the rent from time to time and ultimately it was enhanced on 1.3.1995 to the extent of Rs.700/ p.m. The respondent landlord had taken a sum of Rs.35,000/ as loan from the appellant tenant.
Respondent landlord filed suit No.30A/1999 on 1.4.1999 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of nuisance and bone fide requirement for himself companytending that he was carrying on business of plastic goods and shoes in a rented Gumti measuring 3 ft.
Respondent was in need of the disputed shop for carrying on his business alongwith his son Zulfikar Ali.
No other alternative or companyvenient place was available to him to shift start his business and there had been numberincrease in rent of the suit premises after 1995.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the First Appeal No.2/2003 before the First Additional District Judge, Mhow and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2003 on the ground that the landlord had enhanced the rent from time to time his son had been in employment in Dubai, therefore, the bona fide need was a pretext to enhance the rent or evict the tenant.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25th January, 2006 passed in Second Appeal No.
2/2003 by which the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.
726 of 2003 by which the High Court while allowing the Second Appeal reversed the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the First Appellate Court in First Appeal No.
