The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in eviction cases, and the plaintiff must prove the need for eviction. The provisions of Section 20 of the Accommodation Control Act can be applicable if the plaintiff demonstrates the need for eviction for public purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present second appeal is being filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2019 passed by the 13th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in RCA No. 16/2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 passed by 8th Civil Judge Class I Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 162A/2015.

3. It is alleged that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a civil suit for ejectment and recovery of rent with respect to the shop situated at Sujabadh Bhawan, Gwalior against the appellant/defendant on the allegation that the plaintiff is a registered society under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The purpose of the society is for providing the education and other facility and welfare to the Punjabi community as mentioned in bylaws. The rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month excluding electricity charges were fixed between the parties and the appellants are regularly paying the same. It is alleged that the suit was filed showing the need of the suit accommodation for the purpose of parking and an another shop which is also in possession of the tenant for which a suit is pending. The need is shown to be for parking as some social functions that is marriage etc. are being solemnized in the premises and as the parking facility is not available there, therefore, the suit was filed for ejectment for the aforesaid purpose. The President and the Secretary being the elected members are entitled to file the suit for ejectment. The written statement has been filed denying all the plaint allegations. The need of plaintiff as projected infact is not a bonafide need and unnecessarily the plaintiff is trying to get the vacant possession of the property in question. The appellant is carrying on business for livelihood of his family and himself since years together. There are no arrears of rent but he has been paying the rent regularly to the landlord. It is submitted that the learned trial court has considered the aspect that the property is being required for parking purpose as certain social activities and large public interest are being carried out in the adjoining premises just to facilitate the parking for the public at large the society requires the space for parking. There is no dispute with respect to the tenancy of the appellant in the aforesaid premises. It is submitted that the Secretary was not competent person to file a civil suit, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties at length and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff was successful in proving the case beyond his reasonable doubt and the issues which were framed answered in positive. It was held that the plaintiff is a public trust and Bharat Bhushan Verma and Mahesh Arora were granted the rights to initiate the civil proceedings for eviction of the property. As far as bonafide requirement for continuing his activities in public interest is concerned that was also found proved by the learned trial Court. No other premises were available for such purposes stands proved before the learned trial Court by adducing evidence. Thus, all the issues which have been framed were established before the trial Court by the plaintiff leading cogent evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 has allowed the civil suit and decree of eviction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Challenge being made to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by way of filing an appeal which was registered as RCA No. 16/2016. The ground made for challenging the appeal is that the bonafide requirement shown by the plaintiff does not fall under Section 20 of the Accommodation Control Act as the Society registered is for a particular community at large and not for the public at large. The Society is being registered f