The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving bonafide requirement for eviction under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. accommodation Control act, 1961, and the need for reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

JUDGMENT

Pranay Verma, J. - This appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by appellants against judgment and decree dated 09/11/2021 passed in Civil appeal No.19/2021 by IInd additional District Judge, Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur affirming the judgment and decree dated 19/02/2021 passed in Civil Suit No.2400006/12 by Vth Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent for their eviction from the suit shop has been decreed on ground enumerated under Section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. accommodation Control act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'the act, 1961').

2. The plaintiff instituted an action against defendant, since deceased now being represented through his legal representatives, the appellants for his eviction from the suit shop submitting that the same is bonafide required by him for commencing hand-loom business for his son Hemant Kumar, that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town, that premises available adjoining the suit shop is extremely small and wholly unsuitable for business and is not owned solely by plaintiff, that he is carrying on business from a shop at Sadar Bazar and that the suit shop is only shop available for his son.

3. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement submitting inter-alia that the suit shop is not bonafide required by plaintiff for commencing business of his son Hemant Kumar, that the need as set-up by him is false, that towards east of the suit shop an alternate vacant accommodation is available with plaintiff which has been let-out by him only recently, that plaintiff has acquired several other accommodations during the relevant period hence the need pleaded by him is malafide.

4. Upon recording of evidence of the parties, both oral as well as documentary, the trial Court held that plaintiff has proved that this suit shop is bonafide required by him for commencing business for his son Hemant Kumar 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 on ground under Section 12 (1) (f) of the act, 1961. The appeal preferred by appellants against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed by lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have grossly erred in upholding the need as set-up by plaintiff and in not holding that he is possessed of numerous reasonably suitable alternate accommodations of his own and has let-out the same even subsequent to the period when the alleged need is stated to have arisen. The need is hence obviously false and fabricated and is only a pretext for evicting the defendant. From the cross examination of plaintiff himself it is apparent that the need is apparently made up. The finding of trial Court were specifically challenged in First appeal but lower appellate Court has failed to perform its duties as the last Court of facts while dismissing the appeal and has not decided the appeal as a First appeal. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of Hon'ble apex Court in Siddalingamma and another vs. Mamta Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561, Hasmat ali and others vs. amina Bibi and others 2021 SCC Online SC 1142 and Malluru Mallappa (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Kuruvathappa and others (2020) 4 SCC 313.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.

7. as per the need pleaded by plaintiff in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, suit shop is boanfide required by him for commencing business of his son Hemant Kumar. The said fact has been affirmed by him as PW/1 and by his son Hemant Kumar as PW/2. Thus, from statements of these witnesses which have not been controverted in any manner by defendant, the need of plaintiff as pleaded by him has been proved. The need of plaintiff is c