MADAN SINGH Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL
LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on December 19,2003

MADAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JOGINDER PAL V. NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR DASS JAIN DEAD THR LRS VS. SOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

FAKHRUDDIN,J. - (1.)The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-7-2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2003 by Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30-6-2003 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-11, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 242-A/2002.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts of the case that the respondent had filed a suit for eviction before the Trial Court on the ground that the respondent/ plaintiff is the owner/landlord and the appellants are tenants of the said premises/non- residential accommodation. It was stated that the let out accommodation was non-residential. The area has been shown in the plaint. The respondent contended that he purchased the property through registered sale deed on 17-5-2001 and the appellant No. 1 was tenant. The eviction of the accommodation was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement, which was in possession of the tenant. It was submitted that the respondent and his wife both are advocates an they do not have any other non-residential accommodation of their own in the city. The tenant denied the claim and contended that the requirement shown by the plaintiff is not bona fide as alternative accommodation is available to him.
(3.)The learned Trial Court framed 6 issues. So far as sub-tenancy is concerned, the Trial Court held that it was not proved. The tenant is using the premises for immoral and un- lawful activities. The bona fide issue is found to be proved. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the Trial Court considering the evidence on record arrived to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in bona fide requirement of the accommodation and that no other reasonable/suitable accommodation is available to him. Finding has been recorded in Paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Trial Court, in which it is held that the respondent is an advocate and somehow he is carrying on his profession of advocacy in the drawing room, which is causing great inconvenience to the family. It is also recorded that there is no other non-residential accommodation available to the plaintiff in the city of Bilaspur.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.