Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Kumar vs Vinod Kumar on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6810
1 SA-202-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 202 of 2017
AJIT KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
VINOD KUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Padmnabh Saxena - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of
admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the
defendants/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the courts below whereby the claims of the plaintiffs / respondent for the
eviction from the suit premises has been decreed for the grounds enumerated
under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit premises and defendant
no.1 is his tenant therein @ 400/- per month which is being run by defendant
no.2. Defendant no.1 is not vacating the suit premises. The same are required
by him for the purpose of business of his wife and sons. The plaintiff is not
possessed of any other reasonably, suitable alternate accommodation of his
own in the town. The defendants have refused to vacate the suit premises
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6810
2 SA-202-2017
despite notices issued to them in that regard.
The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim by filing written
statement submitting that the plaintiff does not need the suit premises for the
bonafide need as set up by him. He is possessed of numerous reasonably,
suitable alternate accommodation of his own in the town. The suit has been
preferred by the plaintiff for enhancement of rent. The plaintiff has not
disclosed about the availability of alternate accommodation which he
possesses.
The courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that plaintiff
has proved that he needs the suit premises for business of his family and that
he is not possessed of any other suitable alternate accommodation of his own
in the town.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the courts below
have erred in upholding the need of the plaintiff. From the statement of PW-
1 particularly paragraphs 23, 27, 33 and 40 it is evident that the suit has been
filed by him for enhancement of rent. There is no pleading by the plaintiff in
the plaint itself that he is not possessed of any reasonably suitable alternate
accommodation of his own in the town. In his cross-examination he has
admitted as regard the alternate accommodation. In absence of plea of non-
availability of alternate accommodation his need could not have been
upheld.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants and have perused the record.
In the notice Exihibit P/1 issued by plaintiff to defendants, he had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6810
3 SA-202-2017
stated as regards requirement of the suit premises for the bonafide need of
his son - Nitesh but in the plaint he has pleaded the requirement for entire
family. However, that would be wholly insufficient to negative the need of
the plaintiff. It is the need as set up in the plaint which is required to be
considered and merely because earlier some other need was stated, his need
cannot be disbelieved.
The requirement of the landlord is to plead as regards non-availability
of alternate and vacant accommodation of his own in the town. In case, the
landlord is not possessed of any reasonably suitable alternate
accommodation of his own in the town, he is not required to specifically
plead the said fact. In such circumstances, the tenant can very well establish
the alternate accommodation available with the landlord. The plaintiff has
stated that he is not possessed of any reasonably suitable alternate
accommodation of his own in the town which plea is sufficient. It was for the
defendants to show that such accommodations are available with the plaintiff
which they have not done.
From the entire evidence which is available on record, it has not been
demonstrated that any alternate vacant accommodation is available with the
plaintiff. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff has only stated as regards the
alternate accommodation but from the statement it is not established that the
said accommodation is vacant. Merely because prior to suit rent had been
enhanced the need cannot be said to be false.
The courts below have rightly recorded findings to the effect that the
suit premises are bonafide required by plaintiff for commencing business of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6810
4 SA-202-2017
his family and that he is not possessed of any other reasonably suitable
alternate accommodation of his own in the town. These findings are pure
finds of facts and are not liable to be interfered at the second appellate stage.
No illegality or perversity in the same has been pointed out. No
substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is
consequently dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SSL
