ORDER

1. Whether the term "Son" used in Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would include "Stepson" is the question involved in this appeal.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08/08/2005 passed by Second Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.35-A/2003, whereby the judgment and decree dated 04/10/2002 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna in Civil Suit No.33-A/2002 has been reversed and the suit for eviction filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. For purposes of convenience, the appellant is referred to as "plaintiff" while respondents are referred to as “defendants” as per their respective status in the civil suit. The suit shop, in this order, would mean the shop in the premises situated at Matkari Colony, Guna commonly known as “Anand Bhawan”. The identity of the shop is not disputed between the parties.

Admitted facts:

4. The facts which are no more in dispute are that the suit shop initially belongs to one Anand Rao Matkari. The plaintiff- Vijaya is the daughter of Anand Rao Matkari. It is also not in dispute that the present suit was filed pleading need of one Ashutosh who is stated to be plaintiff's son. However, it has come on record that Ashutosh was the son of one Anand Kumar (not Anand Rao Matkari) from his earlier wife- Smt. Aarti. After death of Aarti in the year 1992, Anand Kumar married to plaintiff on 23/02/1993; however, they have no issue out of their wedlock. Thus, it is not disputed between the parties that Ashutosh is the stepson of the plaintiff, being the son of Anand Kumar from his earlier wife.

5. The defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit shop in the year 1972 by Anand Rao Matkari for non-residential purposes. After the death of Anand Rao Matkari, the shop fell to the plaintiff’s share and accordingly, the defendant started paying rent to her. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants is also not in dispute.

6. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking defendants’ eviction from the suit shop on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) & (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act has been negatived by both the Courts and the same has not been challenged by the plaintiff any further.

7. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1) (f) of the Act. However, the Appellate Court has reversed this finding also and consequently, dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff cannot ask for defendants’ eviction for the need of her stepson. It is also held that the plaintiff has alternate accommodation available on first floor of the building.

8. In her plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit shop is bona-fide required for the business of her son- Ashutosh for which she does not have any other suitable accommodation in the city. The Appellate Court has declined eviction decree on the ground that Ashutosh, being the plaintiff’s stepson, is not covered within the definition of “member of the family” under Section 2(e) of the Act and thus, is not entitled to the decree of eviction.

Contention of Plaintiff’s counsel:

9. Challenging the judgment and decree, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Section 12(1)(e) & (f) only mentions about the term son and does not differentiate between the son and the stepson. It is his submission that Ashutosh is residing with plaintiff could not be disputed by the tenant. Therefore, when the plaintiff treats Ashutosh as her son and there is no inter-se dispute between the plaintiff and Ashutosh, the plaintiff could not have been denied decree for eviction for the need of Ashutosh. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is illegal and needs to be set-aside.

Contention of Defendants’ counsel:

10. On the other hand, l