Heard on the question of admission.

1. The appellant/tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2015 passed in First Appeal No.31/2015 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Shivpuri confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.147-A/2012 by the II Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, whereby the suit filed by the landlord/plaintiff for eviction on the ground mentioned in section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) has been allowed.

2. A suit for eviction and recovery of rent was filed by the plaintiff/landlord in respect of a shop situated in ward No.6, Dharamshala Road, in front of Nagrik Bank, Shivpuri, Tahsil and District Shivpuri ad-measuring about 18 feet in length from north to south and breath about 10 feet from east to west. On the east is a shop known as furniture point owned by one Gaurav Goyal, to the west there is a shop known as Shyam Traders owned by Prem Kumar Goyal, in north Dharamshala Road is situated and in the south, residential house of the plaintiff/landlord is situated.

3. The plaintiff/landlord in the plaint had stated that he is in bona fide requirement of the shop in question because no business is being carried out by the defendant-appellant and has already closed the business of medical shop. The son is running a furniture shop on the east of the shop in question and there is an urgent need of the shop so that he would be in a position to remove the partition of the furniture shop and simultaneously start the business of electronic gadgets and for this purpose he does not have any other vacant shop or premises from where he can carry on the business.

4. The defendant/tenant had opposed the prayer by filing a written statement. The contention raised by the defendant/tenant has been denied. It is contended that he had been depositing the rent from time to time and as on date there is no arrears of rent whatsoever. It is further contended that as he is suffering from muscular disorder, therefore, is not in a position to run the medical shop but he has shifted his business to share market transactions as well as dealing in wholesale business, therefore, it is wrong to say that the shop has been closed for the last three years. The plaintiff/landlord is not in bona fide need of the shop for running an electronic shop but wants to get the shop vacated just to gain handsome amount by letting the shop by asking for deposit and increased rent. It is further contended that no other electronic shop is situated nearby the shop and the plaintiff/landlord owns about four shops where he can start the electronics shop and as such there is no bona fide requirement, therefore, the suit needs to be dismissed.

5. It is submitted that both the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff/landlord has established the bona fide needs with regard to the disputed shop that to without appreciating the evidence available on record. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserves to be set aside.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord has pointed out paras 9 to 15 of the appellate court judgment as well as the evidence of PW2 where he has stated in para13 that there is no electronic shop in the market. It is also an admitted fact that there is no separate market for electronics goods. He wants to open a electronics shop adjacent to the furniture shop. The DW1 in para 19 has accepted that besides the disputed shop, son of the plaintiff Gaurav Goyal is running a furniture shop and behind the shop the plaintiff is residing in a house. This clearly goes to show that the plaintiff has been able to establish the bonafied requirement and as such both the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has relied on the judgment of this Court, reported