The central legal point established in the judgment is the genuine need for commencing a new business under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and the court's discretion in allowing the amendment of the written statement and admission of additional evidence.

JUDGMENT

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against Judgment and Decree dated 16-4-1998 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal in R.C.A. No. 9A/1996 arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 19-1-1996 passed by 13th Civil Judge, Class2, Bhopal in C.S. No. 121A/1991.

2. The Appellant is the defendant who lost his case before the First Appellate Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction by pleading interalia that the plaintiffs are the owner of house situated in Lakherapura (peergate), Bhopal. One shop situated in the said property is let out to the Appellant on the monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. It was claimed that the suit shop is bonafide required for non-residential purposes of his son Abhay Kumar Garg. The son of the plaintiffs would start the business of cloths and he has the experience of business of clothes. Since, the suit shop in question is small admeasuring 7x13 sq.ft. therefore, the adjoining shop which is in possession of Gyanchand Jain shall also be required. Therefore, the plaintiff would construct one shop after clubbing the shop of Gyanchand Jain also. A suit has also been filed by the plaintiffs against Gyanchand Jain for eviction. The tenancy of the Appellant was terminated by sending registered notice dated 11-2-1989 which was received by the Appellant on 13-2-1989. Thus, the suit was filed for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was further pleaded that the Appellant is in arrears of rent and accordingly, the suit was filed for eviction, mesne profits and damages caused to property.

4. The Appellant filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was denied that the Appellant is in arrears of rent. No damage was caused to Weather Board. The bonafide requirement of Abhay Kumar Garg was denied. It was pleaded that Abhay Kumar Garg is already working as a partner with his father in a shop situated in Chowk Bazar, Bhopal. Further, about 6 months back, the legal representatives of another tenant Kannumal Jain have handed over the vacant possession of a godown which is situated on the back side of the shop in question and the said godown is sufficient to cater the need of the plaintiff.

5. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.

6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal which has been decreed by the First Appellate Court.

7. This Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law :

1. Whether reversing finding of genuine need for commencing new business under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is vitiated for omission to meet the trial Court's reasoning coupled with plaintiff's admission vis-à-vis the case set up in the plaint?

2. Whether the Appellate Court, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in refusing leave to amend the written statement and admission of additional evidence incorporating subsequent event?

8. Challenging the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that the First Appellate Court should not have reversed the findings of the Trial Court. The respondent has failed to prove the bonafide need of his son for non-residential purposes and the First Appellate Court should have allowed the amendment in the Written Statement.

9. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents has supported the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Whether reversing finding of genuine need for commencing new business under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is vitiated for omission to meet the trial Court's reasoning coupled with plaintiff's admission vis-à-vis the case set up in the plaint?

11. It is the case of the respondents that Abhay Kumar Garg has an experience of business of clothes and it is also acc