The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide need for eviction, and lack of other suitable accommodations in eviction cases under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendant No.1/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.13/2020 by the 8th Additional District Judge, District Ujjain affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2018 by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-I, District Ujjain whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for eviction of the defendants on ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred as 'the Act, 1961') had been decreed.

3. The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants for their eviction from the suit premises which is a shop measuring 1.86 meter x 8.36 meter situated in house No.152, Gopal Mandir Marg, Bada Sarafa, Ujjain submitting that Gendalal, father of defendants had taken the suit shop on rent from him, that upon his death 10 years ago the defendants have continued in occupation of the suit shop, that plaintiff is carrying on business of a saree shop from the shop adjoining the suit shop and from part on the first floor, that the said shop is extremely small and insufficient for his business, that he and his family members are also residing on the first floor and have to go through their shop to the first floor, that due to insufficiency of space plaintiff and his workers are not able to sit properly in their shop and run business therefrom, that the suit shop is hence bona fide required by him for extending his shop and opening up a modern showroom therefrom and that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town.

4. The defendants No.1 and 4 contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their separate written statements submitting inter alia that the partition between the shops was in existence even at the time when the suit shop was taken on rent, that the measurements of shop have not been correctly shown, that plaintiff is not carrying on any business of sale of saree, that the suit shop had been taken on rent from Gopalji, that upon purchase of the entire property by Shantilal he started recovering rent from the tenants, that on his instructions defendants' father started paying rent to Shailendra Kumar, that plaintiff is not his landlord and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff, that the suit has been filed for increasing rent and that plaintiff is possessed of numerous reasonably suitable alternate accommodations of his own in the town.

5. Upon evaluation of the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties the trial Court held that plaintiff has proved that he is the landlord and defendants are his tenants in the suit shop, that the suit shop is bona fide required by him for expansion of his business and that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. In consequence plaintiff's claim was decreed. The said judgment and decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court in First Appeal having been preferred by defendant No.1 against the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. The plaintiff has himself admitted that he is having one more shop on the first floor and is doing business from two floors in the same building. These admissions have been illegally excluded. Though the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit shop is required by him for expansion of his business but the said need has not been proved by him by his evidence. The need projected by plaintiff is only a felt need and is not a need in presenti and cannot be regarded as a bona fide need. The shop from which plaintiff is doing business has been suppressed by him. He is also possessed of various alternate accommodatio