9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 12(l)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and the determination of the burden of proof in eviction cases based on bona fide requirement for business purposes. Summary: The plaintiff, acting as a landlord, filed a suit u/s 12(l)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking eviction of the defendant-tenant to open a showroom for motor-cycles and mopeds. The trial court and lower appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, stating his bona fide need for the premises. However, the High Court in the second appeal raised questions regarding the defendant's burden of proof and the suitability of alternative accommodations. The High Court, in the second appeal, set aside the lower courts' decisions based on the defendant's admission of possessing other properties, questioning the plaintiff's need for the disputed premises. The Single Judge of the High Court emphasized the defendant's burden of proof and the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence post-amendment of the plaint. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the High Court erred in re-evaluating the evidence and setting aside the lower courts' concurrent findings. The Court emphasized the landlord's discretion in determining his requirement for business purposes and the lack of evidence showing the availability of suitable alternative properties owned by the plaintiff. The Court referenced previous judgments to establish that the High Court's decision was not justified as there was no error in the consideration of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's judgment and reinstating the decisions of the lower courts.
|
