The landlord is obligated to plead and prove the availability of alternate accommodation and its unsuitability for the alleged need, as per the provisions of section 12(1)(f) of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT : – This second appeal, under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-2-2022 passed by the First District Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 600031A/2017, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2017 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Maihar, District Satna in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2016, by which the suit filed by the respondent for eviction on the ground of 12(1)(a), (f) and (g) of Accommodation Control Act, has been decreed.

2. The facts, necessary for disposal of present appeal in short, are that the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 77/2014 in which the shops are situated. Earlier the house was in the ownership of Smt. Sumitra Bai, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff and on 1-8-1982 the shop in question was let out to Ram Dayal, father of the appellant. The father of the defendant started the business of sale and repair of watches and the rent was increased from time to time. The father of the defendant died in year 2008 and, thereafter, the defendant continued as a tenant of the shop. In the month of July, 2013, the plaintiff informed the defendant that roof of the shop has become weak and it is unsecured, therefore, he should vacate the same so that the reconstruction can be done. But the defendant did not vacate the shop and also stopped making payment of rent. The defendant has also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. The plaintiff is in need of disputed shop for the bona fide need for non-residential purposes for his children and accordingly, it was prayed that the defendant may be evicted from the shop in question and the arrears of rent may be paid.

3. This appeal has been filed by defendant. The appellant filed his written statement and admitted that the father of the appellant had taken the said shop on rent in the year 1978. The respondent wants to get the shop vacated without there being any bona fide requirement. The respondent had also beaten the appellant and had also damaged the belongings and accordingly, a report was also lodged in Maihar Police Station, but no action was taken. Therefore, a suit for permanent injunction has been filed. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 1000/- but neither the shop is in dilapidated condition nor unsuitable for carrying on business. It was further pleaded that the respondent does not have any bona fide requirement and the suit has been filed on incorrect facts.

4. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit on the ground that the respondent is in bona fide need for non-residential purposes as well as the shop is required to be reconstructed and the appellant is in arrears of rent.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court.

6. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, by referring to the evidence of Jai Prakash Dwivedi (P.W.2) it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in paragraph No. 13 of his cross-examination, he had admitted that one shop of the respondent is lying vacant, which at present is being used as drawing room. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent is in possession of alternative and suitable accommodation and the burden is on him to prove that the said alternative accommodation is not suitable/conducive to meet out the bona fide requirement.

7. It is further submitted that after having come to the conclusion that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition, the Courts below should have given an option of re-entry and, therefore, filed this appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law :

“A. Whether in absence of any document to prove the rate of monthly rent, the Courts below were justified in holding arbitrarily that the monthly rent of the suit accommodation is Rs. 1000/- per month and the defendant is liable to pay arrears of