1988 (8) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond appeal has reversed the decision and passed a decree. 2. The case is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and s. 12(1)(f) deals with the ground of landlord's bona fide necessity with reference to buildings let out for non-residential purposes, in the following words: "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants-(l) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely : (a) ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- (f) that the accommodat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he shop belongs to him. On appeal the Additional District Judge, Gwalior confirmed the finding mainly on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce the deed of partition which is alleged to have been executed by the parties and under which the house was claimed by the plaintiff to have been allotted to him. The Court also held that since the plaintiff failed to plead his ownership and further neglected to get his plaint amended after his title was denied in the written statement, he was not entitled to rely on any evidence in support of his title. On the plaintiff filing a second appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit. 5. Mr. Kacker strongly urged that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that my client is occupying the shop situated at Dal Bazar belonging to your client. . . . " The plaintiff also produced counter foil receipts signed by the tenant-appellant in which the plaintiff was described as "the owner of property". It was not a case of an isolated single receipt-quite a number of such documents were produced in the trial court. The High Court was right in pointing out that the courts below had seriously erred in not considering the entire evidence on the record including the aforesaid documents. It is true that the High Court while hearing the appeal under s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence and reverse the conclusion reached by the first appella....