The court reaffirmed that bona fide need for premises may justify eviction, especially when tenant fails to pay rent and alternative accommodations are unavailable.

JUDGMENT :

Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.

This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff - Daduram Gupta (now dead, through LRs) challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in regular civil appeal No.20-A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class - I, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in civil suit No.10-A/2006, whereby trial court decreed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of plaintiff's son - Rajeev Gupta to start kirana business available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and in civil appeal filed by respondent/defendant/tenant, first appellate Court dismissed the suit.

2. In short the facts are that the original plaintiff - Daduram Gupta instituted a suit for eviction against the respondent/defendant with the allegations that the defendant is tenant in the disputed shop admeasuring 11' X 14' on rent of Rs.900/- per month. Despite making several demands and even after service of notice dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.P/1) the defendant did not pay the monthly rent. It is also alleged that the rented shop is required for bonafide need of plaintiff's son - Rajeev Gupta for doing kirana business and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.

3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the monthly rate of rent is Rs.450/- p.m. and the defendant has not committed any default in making payment of rent. It is also contended that son of plaintiff is already doing business and the alleged need is not bonafide. It is also contended that there are several other alternative accommodations available with the plaintiff in the township of Pipariya. On interalia 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. In support of his submissions the plaintiff examined himself -Daduram Gupta (PW-1), Rajeev Gupta (PW-2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/3). The defendant also examined himself-Purushottam Tawri (DW-1), P.M. Mourya (DW-2), Bhuvneshwar Paliwal (DW-3) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/4c). After hearing the parties trial court held that the monthly rate of rent is Rs.900/- per month and the plaintiff is in need of the shop for starting business by his son Rajeev Gupta and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff in the township of Pipariya, accordingly decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, however refused to pass decree on the ground under Section12(1)(a) of the Act vide its judgment and decree dtd. 23.10.2008.

5. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent/defendant preferred regular civil appeal, however no cross- objection was filed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the ground available under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of trial court and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated31.10.2011.

6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred second appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on 06.05.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether, the First Appellate Court has committed gross illegality in allowing the appeal