TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff-landlord and respondent as defendant-tenant hereinafter for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 12(l)(f) of M.P. Accommoda-tion Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the defendant- tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement as he required the suit premises for opening a show- room of Indo-Suzuki motor-cycles and TVS-50 mopeds for which he was appointed sub-dealer. The trial court came to the finding that the plaintiff- landlord was in bona fide need of the disputed premises for doing his own business and for this purpose no other suitable shop was available to him in the city of Chattarpur. The lower appellate court after consider-ing the evidence on record upheld the above finding of the trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y setting aside the concur-rent finding of fact of the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence on record. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court. In Kashibai w/o Lachiram and Another v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram and Others, [1995] 6 SCC 213, this Court inter alia held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. The only question to be decided in the suit was whether plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided on the appreciation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Durga Prasad. No building having ownership of the plaintiffs father Durga Prasad is vacant or in possession of the plaintiff. No additional written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-tenant and no further evidence was adduced after the amendment by either parties. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has found fault as the plaintiff-landlord did not give evidence after above amendment of the plaint. In our opinion it is not necessary as the above amendment was not rebutted by the defendant-tenant. The learned Single Judge also erred in law in holding that lower appellate court wrongly placed onus on the defendant-tenant. It is true that the lower appellate court was of the view that the burden of proving that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR (1988) SC 1858 - (1988) 3 JT 308 in which this Court held that the High Court in the second appeal was fully justified in reversing the findings of the courts below. This Court took note of the fact that the High Court was right in pointing out that the courts below had seriously erred in not considering the entire evidence on record including documents where there was an admission. in other words this was a case of non-consideration of evidence on record but that is not so in the case in hand. The second decision of this Court on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel was in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR (1992) SC 1604. This Court held that the High Court in the second appeal is not precluded f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
