BHAGCHAND VS LAXMI NARAYAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

S.P.KHARE
BHAGCHAND – Appellant
Versus
LAXMI NARAYAN – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
A.K. Jain, for the Appellant; N.K. Patel, for the Respondent

ORDER

S.P. Khare, J.

This is Defendants' second appeal u/s 100, CPC Code. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

Plaintiff's suit for eviction has been decreed under Sections 12(l)(b) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). This decree is assailed in this second appeal.

12(1)(b):

There is a concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court that Defendant No. 1 Bhagchand has sub-let the suit accommodation to Defendant No. 2 Ashok Kumar, who is his brother. The Defendant No. 2 is carrying on his business in the name of "Ashok Agency" and he is the Proprietor of this business. The first Appellate Court has held in para 13 of its judgment on the basis of admission of the Defendant No. 2 in his cross-examination that he is carrying on his business independently and his brother, the Defendant No. 1 has "no relation with the Defendant No. 2." Thus, according to this finding, Defendant No. 2 Ashok Kumar is incharge of the business which is being run in the name of Ashok Agency and Defendant No. 1 Bhagchand has no control over that business. It is important to note that Defendant No. 1 Bhagchand has not en