The court's interpretation and application of section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in determining the plaintiff's bona-fide requirement for the suit accommodation for the purpose of continuing its business.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. SEN, J.

1. This appeal filed by the defendant is directed against a judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, dated 9th September, 1970, affirming the judgment and decree of the IVth Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, dated 17th September, 1968, decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for his eviction under section 12 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. The relevant fact, in brief, is as follows:-

The parties stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff is a Partnership firm styled as M/s Indian Mill Stores Raipur, which is doing business of Oil-engines Pumps, Electric-motors, Machineries, Pipes, Spare-parts etc. at Ganjpara, Raipur in a rented house. The plaintiff-firm purchased a building at Ganjpara-Raipur, consisting of 4 identical blocks of one room each of which the demised premises is one, by a registered sale-deed dated 23-3-1965. The defendant who is in occupation of one of the blocks is running a hotel under the name Dau hotel, attorned to the plaintiff on 1-4-1965 vide Kirayanama Ex.P-2.

3. The plaintiff stated that it is a registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act, and that Narsi Bhai who signed the plaint, is one of the partners of the firm. The plaintiff's Case is that the partnership firm purchased the building for location of its business and that it does not have any house of its own in Raipur city Therefore, the plaintiff bona-fide requires the demised premises for the purpose of continuing its business under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The plaintiff states that the tenancy of the defendant was according to the English Calendar month and commenced from first and ended on the last day of the month, and that his tenancy had been determined after the close of last day of May, 1967, by service of a notice dated 22-4-1967, Ex.P-3.

4. The defendant contested the plaintiff's Claim while admitting that the plaintiff-firm had purchased the building in which the demised premises is located. The defendant pleaded that the alleged need of the plaintiff was just a pretence to secure his eviction. it was denied that the plaintiff requires bona-fide the suit accommodation for its business purposes, or that it has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of its own for that purpose in Raipur city. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff-firm is already doing its business in its present site taken on lease since last so many years which is in the heart of the business locality and has earned reputation and goodwill and, therefore, the alleged requirement was not bona-fide but was made only with a view to secure an increase of the rent. He further pleaded that the tenancy has not been validly determined according to law, denying that the tenancy commences from the first and ends on the last day of the month. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial.

5. Both the Courts below have concurrently found, as a fact, that the plaintiff-firm has established that it bona-fide requires the suit accommodation for purposes of continuing the business of the partnership within the terms of section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, relying on the testimony of Narsi Bhai (PW-1) one of the partners of the firm. That is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. A finding of this nature which is a finding on a pure question of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal. [Sarvate T.B. vs. Nemichand, 1966 MPLJ 26 (SC) and Mattulal vs. Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596].

6. No doubt, the burden of proving bona-fide requirement for its business, as also that the plaintiff has no reasonably suitable accommodation of its own, lay on the plaintiff. Whether in a given case that burden is discharged by the evidence on record is the question of fact: Sarvate T.B. vs. Nemichand (supra).

7. The conclusion that the Courts below have reached is the only conclusion possible on the evi