IMPORTANT POINT
The bona fide requirement for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is a factual matter that courts should respect unless clear errors are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

Gajendra Singh, J.

This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 20-3-2023 passed by learned Fifth Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 28-A/19 arising out of judgment dated 30-4-2019 in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2014 by IVth Civil Judge, Class I, Indore (M.P.) whereby the decree of eviction has been passed against the appellant/tenant/ defendant on the ground of section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. The facts as mentioned before the trial Court are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the civil suit on 14-10-2014 for the vacant possession of the portion of house No. 21, Main Street, Mhow, Indore that was in the possession of defendant/appellant on the ground of 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Act, 1961 claiming that the defendant/appellant is the tenant of suit accommodation at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month rent on the basis of rent note dated 1-2-2008 from the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The death of husband of plaintiff was occurred in the year 2010. An Amount of Rs.97,500/- is due for the period of 1-8-2011 to 31-7-2014 and the accommodation is required bona fide for the purpose of starting business of clothes of his major son and no alternative accommodation is available in the city and the defendant has created the nuisance.

3. The appellant/defendant filed his written statement admitting that he executed the agreement dated 1-2-2008 in favour of the plaintiff and her husband. Additionally, he submitted that after the death of Rajendra Singh, other heirs of Rajendra Singh have not been joined as plaintiff. The tenancy was started for the first time on 1-12-1985 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was also deposited and that amount has not been returned to him. The agreement dated 4-2-2008 is in the nature of agreement to sale. The amount mentioned in the agreement has not been repaid to him. He never denied the title of plaintiff. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. She has created documents in the nature of gift deeds to show the absence of all suitable alternative accommodation and prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. Learned trial Court framed the 11 issues and the ground mentioned in 12(1)(f) was decided as not proved and suit filed by Dr. Gopal Prasad Tiwari for specific performance of contract was decreed partially allowing only refund of Rs.3,87,700/- with interest.

5. Challenging the judgment dated 30-4-2019 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class – I, Mhow in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2014 an appeal was filed by the respondent/Smt. Sudha Singh. The Appellate Court reversing the findings of trial Court regarding bona fide requirement of the suit accommodation decreed the suit of Sadhna Singh Tomar on the ground of 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and ordered eviction of appellant from suit accommodation.

6. Challenging the judgment dated 20-3-2023 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore in Civil Regular Appeal No. 28-A/19, this second appeal has been preferred and proposed 10 substantial questions of law which are being referred as below :—

1. Whether, the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the learned trial Court which had dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profits?

2. Whether, the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the learned trial Court which had given cogent reasoning for dismissing the suit filed by the respondent and has not found any ground tenable for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, especially when the learned first appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the learned trial Court under section 12(1)(a) and (c) of M.P. Accommodation control Act 1961?

3. Whether, the learned First Appellate Court was justified in taking a