The court affirmed that a landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act must be accepted unless proven otherwise, distinguishing legal profession from commercial activity.

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against judgment and decree dated 06.08.2024 passed by V^th District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in RCA No.255/2023, as well as, judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 passed by XII^th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior (M.P.) in RCSA No.105/2016.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the tenant.

3. The Trial Court had granted decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for brevity “the Act”). However, the appellate Court has set aside the decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act but has affirmed the decree of trial court which was passed on the ground of bona fide need for non-residential purposes.

4. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground that he is a Senior Advocate practicing in Gwalior. He is owner and in possession of part of building No.37/58 situated at Nadi Gate, MLB Road, Shinde Ki Chhawani, Lashkar, Gwalior. The aforesaid building was purchased in the year 1996 from his previous owner. It was alleged that the defendant is in possession of a shop situated in the said building on the monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The suit shop was let out by the previous owner to Succha Singh and now defendant is in illegal possession as Sikmi tenant. The previous owner had also filed a suit for eviction against Succha Singh and defendant, however, during pendency of the said suit, appellant purchased the property. During the pendency of suit between earlier owner and Succha Singh, Succha Singh had paid rent upto December, 1978 and thereafter defendant did not deposit any rent. Later on, an agreement was arrived at between Succha Singh and previous owner and accordingly, the suit remained pending between previous owner and defendant. From December, 1978, neither Succha Singh nor defendant deposited the rent nor paid it to the plaintiff. However, the trial court passed judgment and decree by treating the defendant as Shikmi tenant. Copy of aforesaid judgment and decree was also filed along with plaint. Thereafter, the High Court in Second Appeal No. 65/1999 by its judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 held that defendant is tenant. However, it was pleaded that in spite of demand raised by plaintiff, the defendant has not paid rent from December, 1978 and accordingly it was pleaded that plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent. It was pleaded that plaintiff is a Senior Advocate and many junior advocates are working with him. Earlier office of plaintiff was being run in the portion of building which is in the ownership and possession of his sons Satya Sharma and Shiv Sharma and now elder son of plaintiff, namely, Satya Sharma has started practising independently and has established his office in the part of the building in which earlier plaintiff was running his office. Accordingly, it was pleaded that at present plaintiff is without any office. It was further pleaded that on account of non-availability of premises, plaintiff is running his office from his residence which is on the second floor of the house. Generally, litigants are required to visit the Court to meet the lawyers but since the building is in the street and as the office of plaintiff is on the second floor, therefore, it is not visible from the main road and old and infirm litigants cannot approach second floor of building and accordingly, in emergency situations plaintiff is required to come down to the road to discuss the matter by standing on the road itself. Since plaintiff has no place to run his office, therefore, neither he is in a position to provide place to his junior advocates nor he is in a position to develop his library. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has no other alternative accommodation in the city of Gwalior and therefore, the suit premises is required for his personal bona fide and real need for non-