KAMAL KISHORE Vs. SURESH KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Click here to view full judgement.
DHIRENDRA MISHRA,J. -
(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendant/tenant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27-11-2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 5 A/99 by which the judgment and decree of eviction dated 29-9-99 passed by Civil Judge Class I in Civil Suit No. 3 A/1997 has been confirmed.
(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and the defendant is the tenant. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that they were the money lenders and dealing in the jewellery business. They are doing the said business in the small tenanted premises which they had taken on monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 from one Prakash Chandra Bhandari. The further case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that the said tenanted premises is very small and it is very difficult for them to carry on their business at such a small place and the suit premises would be suitable for their business. The plaintiffs pleaded before the Trial Court that there is no other reasonably suitable non residential accommodation available to them in Dongargarh town and as such they bonafidely require the suit accommodation for opening the shop therein. It is further pleaded that they had purchased the said house from the erstwhile owner namely Mahesh Chandra Jain on 6-12-95 through a registered sale deed and one year after the purchase of the property, they instituted the instant suit for eviction as their landlord Prakash Chandra Bhandari was pressurizing for eviction. As the plaintiffs had purchased the suit premises, they had promised their landlord to vacate the said premises. It has been further pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff No. 2 is carrying on his business of ready-made garments in the tenanted premises of one Ganeshmal Bhandari which he obtained on monthly rent of Rs. 440.00. It is also pleaded that this shop was also inadequate for the purpose and therefore they needed the suit premises bonafidely for opening the shop.
(3.) The defendant in his written statement admitted that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs. Rent of Rs. 550.00 per month has also been admitted. It is also disputed by the defendant that the plaintiffs are the money lenders and they deal in the business of jewellery in the tenanted premises of Prakash Chandra Bhandari. However, the size of the shop and rent has been denied for want of knowledge.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.