https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196832 For eviction of non-residential premises on bona fide personal necessity under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the claimant had to establish ownership or title, and the Court held that this requirement was satisfied by the pleadings, pre-suit notice, admission in reply, and rent receipts describing the respondent as owner. The municipal record in a brother's name did not outweigh the full evidentiary record, and the courts below had erred by ignoring material documents. In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court was entitled to interfere because such omission created a substantial question of law. The title and need were therefore treated as sufficiently proved. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:34:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196832 For eviction of non-residential premises on bona fide personal necessity under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the claimant had to establish ownership or title, and the Court held that this requirement was satisfied by the pleadings, pre-suit notice, admission in reply, and rent receipts describing the respondent as owner. The municipal record in a brother's name did not outweigh the full evidentiary record, and the courts below had erred by ignoring material documents. In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court was entitled to interfere because such omission created a substantial question of law. The title and need were therefore treated as sufficiently proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196832