The bona fide need of a landlord under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act includes the needs of their spouse, and heirs can execute eviction decrees despite the original landlord's death.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is preferred by the original appellant/defendant Harpal Sindhi (now dead, thr. LRs.) challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008 passed by Third Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Katni in civil appeal No.26-A/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, Katni, in civil suit No.266- A/2006, whereby plaintiff’s suit for eviction of rented shop as well as arrears of rent has been decreed on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Facts in short are that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for eviction on the ground of his personal requirement of the disputed shop with the allegation that the defendant/appellant is his tenant in the shop on rent of Rs.300/- and the shop is needed for starting retail oil business by him as well as by his wife. It is alleged that at present the plaintiff is doing readymade clothes business in one shop and for improvement in the business the suit shop is needed and there is no other suitable alternative vacant accommodation available in the township of Katni. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is not in need of the suit shop for himself and his wife as he is already in possession of other alternative accommodation to satisfy his need. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties and upon due consideration of the entire material available on record decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement available under section 12(1)(f) of the Act vide judgment and decree dtd. 12.04.2007 by holding the need of the plaintiff and his wife to be genuine. Against which the appellant/defendant preferred regular civil appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2008. Against which instant second appeal was preferred and was admitted for final hearing on 02.07.2008 on the following substantial questions of law :

“i. Whether under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act the house can be got vacated for the need of spouse or for the need of both the spouses and inclusion of the need of plaintiff along with his wife was only a pretext to get the house vacated ?

ii. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff had got sufficient alternative accommodation in the same market and keeping the 3 shops vacant without using them after getting them vacated, the need of the plaintiff in regard to the suit accommodation was neither genuine nor bona fide ?

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that both the Courts below have committed an illegality in holding that the plaintiff- Vicharnath Gupta is in need of the suit shop and without considering the fact that need of the spouse of landlord is not covered under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, committed an illegality in decreeing the suit and has also committed illegality in holding that there is no other vacant alternative suitable accommodation available with the plaintiff to start the alleged business. He submits that although the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the courts below, but during pendency of the second appeal the plaintiff-Vicharnath Gupta and his wife-Smt.