ORDER :

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2024 passed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85/2019 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.04.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 116A/2019 was reversed and based on the bonafide need of the landlord-respondent/plaintiff, the decree for eviction was granted.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in terms of Section 12(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961') thereby praying for decree of eviction, payment of arrears of rent and mesne profit. The respondent/plaintiff stated in her plaint that the suit premises was rented to the appellant/defendant on 01.11.1997 on a rent of Rs. 1,250/- per month. The suit property is a residential house comprising ground as well as first floor. Initially, only ground floor was rented to the appellant/defendant. It was further averred that later on the first floor of the suit premises was also rented to the appellant/defendant on 01.01.2000 and the monthly rent was increased to Rs. 2,000/- per month. The rent was later on revised to Rs. 4,500/- per month.

3. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction by stating that the appellant/defendant changed the user of the rented premises by installing a paper cutting machine in the ground floor of the rented premises without permission from the landlord i.e. respondent/plaintiff. As such in terms of Section 12(1)(c), the decree of eviction deserves to be passed on this ground alone. It was further averred that the appellant/defendant was asked to evict the suit premises for the reason that the plaintiff has bonafide need of the rented premises for her own use. Apart from this, the default of rent was also pleaded.

4. The appellant/defendant filed his written statement in denial of the pleadings in the plaint. It was stated that there was no default of rent and also that the respondent No. 1 is not in bonafide need of the suit premises for the reason that she is living at Ratlam and she has not explained that for what reason she has to shift to Indore. As such, the bonafide need has not been proved. It has further been stated in the written statement that in fact the rent agreement is a forged document. An oral agreement was entered into between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant for sale of the rented premises for a sale consideration of Rs. 17 lakhs and the appellant/defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as advance in cash to the son-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff namely Manoj Gupta and also given a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh to him which is still in his possession. Based on the pleadings of the contesting parties, the trial Court framed as many as 06 issues, all the issues were decided against the respondent/plaintiff and in favour of the appellant/defendant vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019. As such, the learned trial Court did not find the bonafide need of the respondent/plaintiff proved and it was also not found that the appellant/defendant had installed paper cutting machine without permission of the landlord-respondent/plaintiff. The default of rent was also not found proved.

5. The respondent/plaintiff being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree preferred Regular Civil appeal No. 85/2019 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.02.2024 allowed the said appeal and reversed the findings of the trial Court on the ground of bonafide need. As for the issues of default of rent and change of user of the rented premises, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. As such, on these two issues the findings were recorded against the respondent/plaintiff. Thus, it is only on the question of bonafide need that the suit was decreed and the appellant/defendant was directed to hand