NATTHULAL Vs. KISHORILAL
LAWS(CHH)-2005-3-21
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on March 16,2005

NATTHULAL Appellant
VERSUS
KISHORILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-9-2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 50-A/2002 by which the judgment and decree dated 27-3-2002 passed by the Civil Judge Class I Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2002 for eviction has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he was the owner of the suit property situated in Raigarh which was given to the defendant/respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- for residential purpose. Earlier the plaintiff was residing with his brother Ram Kumar Agrawal. However, with the passage of time as the family grew up and it was not possible for the plaintiff to accommodate all the family members in the said house, he required the suit accommodation bonafidely for his residence. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that there is no other reasonably suitable alternative residential accommodation available with the plaintiff in Raigarh Town. It was also the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the defendant did not vacate the suit premises despite the oral requests and rather he stopped paying rent to the plaintiff. This apart, the plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant made alteration and addition in the suit property without the permission of the plaintiff. He also filed an application under section 25 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act (hereafter referred to as Act for convenience) and hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE defendant denied the plaint allegations and stated that the plaintiff does not require the suit accommodation bonafidely. It was further submitted by the defendant that the when the plaintiff stopped receiving rent through money order, an application under section 25 of the act was filed and the rent was deposited in the Court. It was further submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff is possessed of number of houses in Raigarh Town and the accommodation in which the plaintiff was residing along with his son is sufficient for his residence. Defendant further pleaded that the suit was filed by the plaintiff with a view to enhance the rent and thus harass the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant amended the written statement by incorporating paragraph 9-A by which it was pleaded that the rent has been deposited by him in the Court. Written statement was further amended by the defendant on 29-4-1993 by incorporating paragraph 9-B and it was pleaded that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff had obtained vacant possession of another identical house adjacent to the suit house in May 1993. It was further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit itself the plaintiff had given another accommodation measuring 8000 sq. ft. on rent to Adarsh Gyan Ganga School. In addition to this, it was also pleaded by the defendant that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had also obtained vacant possession of another suit house which was let out to one Abdul Salam Ansari in execution of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 61-A/1987, on the ground of bona fide requirement for his residence.
(3.) HOWEVER , the plaintiff also amended the plaint and denied the allegations made by the defendant by way of amendment in the written statement, and stated that he had obtained the possession of another suit house in execution of the judgment and decree dated 1-12-1986 passed in Civil Suit No. 152-A/1986 for non residential purpose for the office of his son namely Shiv Kumar and the other accommodation which was let out to adarsh Gyan Ganga School is not fit for his residence as it was used for the purpose of godown in the past. The plaintiff also pleaded that the third house mentioned by the defendant is situated in the third floor which is also not sufficient for the plaintiff for his residence. Apart from the aforesaid accommodations it appears that the defendant has also mentioned certain other accommodations belonging to the plaintiff. Thus, in addition to the suit accommodation, the plaintiff was having the possession of number of other accommodations which however has been denied by the plaintiff on the ground that the above accommodations have already been given on rent and the plaintiff is not in possession of those accommodations.;


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