IMPORTANT POINT
The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided on the appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT

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 M.P. at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 55/98 reversing the judgment and decree of two courts below passed in favour of the appellant.

2. The appellant herein shall be described as plaintiff-landlord and respondent as defendant-tenant hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation 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 trial Court 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 no other suitable shop was available to him in the city of Chattarpur. The lower appellate Court after considering the evidence on record upheld the above finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-tenant.

4. The High Court in the second appeal framed the following two questions which according to the High Court were substantial questions of law:

(i) "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 court could not have decreed the suit of the respondent under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961?

(ii) Whether in view of the admission of the respondent the trial Court wrongly placed onus on the appellant to prove that the alternative accommodation is suitable for the business of the respondent?"

5. 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 alternatively accommodation was not suitable for the plaintiff-landlord and that courts below had ignored the fact that plaintiff-landlord had admitted that he and his father was in possession of certain shops and had not stated why these alternative shops were not suitable for their business or they were vacant. On these grounds the learned single Judge set aside both the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Sanghi for the appellant has urged that the High Court in the second appeal erred in law by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence on record. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court.

8. In Kashibai w/o Lachiram & Anr. v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram & Ors.1, this Court inter alia held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, based on appreciation of the relevant evidence.

9. The only question to be decided in the suit was whether plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided on the appreciation of evidence. This view was also expressed by this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr.2.

10. The learned single Judge of the High Court while formulating first substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff-landlord admitted that there were number of plots, shops and houses in his possession. We have been taken through the judgments of the courts below and we do not find any such admission. It is true that the plaintiff-landlord in his evidence stated that there were number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that suit premises is suitable