RIAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUE Vs. PRATIBHA DEVI SINHA
LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-15
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on February 09,2005

Riaz Ahmad Siddique Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Pratibha Devi Sinha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD on the question of admission.
(2.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 12-10-2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur confirming the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2003 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 24/01/2002. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground that the original tenant had inducted sub tenant without written consent of the landlord according to Section 12(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act which was subsequently confirmed by the First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment.
(3.) CASE of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the suit premises being a shop was given on rent by the plaintiff namely, Late Smt. Kailaso Devi and the respondent No. 3 for monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 on the ground that there was an agreement of tenancy executed on 30-9-1987 between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. The premises was taken on rent by defendant No. 1 for the purpose of business of clothes. However, in the month of April, 1993, appellant/defendant No. 2 opened a hair cutting saloon and on enquiry it was found that defendant No. 1 had inducted defendant No. 2 as sub-tenant. Thereafter a registered legal notice dated 7-4-93 was sent to both the defendants. However, instead of replying to the said notice, the defendant No. 2 instituted a Civil Suit against the plaintiffs before the Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur praying for perpetual injunction against the forcible eviction from the premises. It was also alleged that the rent of the premises was not paid by the defendant since January, 1993. In the joint written statement the case of the defendant was that as per the terms of this agreement executed between the plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1, the premises was vacated by defendant No. 1 on 30-9-90 and the vacant possession of the suit house was handed over to the plaintiffs and thereafter the same was given on rent as per the oral agreement. Service of legal notice was denied and it was stated that Civil Suit against forcible eviction was filed by defendant No. 2 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. However, defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal in the High Court and the same is still pending. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No. 1 died and in her place respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were substituted. Defendants also raised their objection that after the death of plaintiff No. 1, Kailaso Devi, all her legal heirs have not been brought on record within the period prescribed and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Non payment of rent was also denied and it was stated that rent was being regularly paid by the defendants and there was nothing outstanding towards rent. Learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment decreed the suit holding that the suit premises was given on sub tenancy by defendant No. 1 to appellant/defendant No. 2 and there was no oral agreement of tenancy between the plaintiffs and appellant/defendant No. 2 with respect to the tenanted premises and the plaintiffs were entitled for vacant possession of the said premises. However, the claim of the plaintiffs that the rent from February, 1993 has not been paid was disallowed as not proved. The above judgment of the Trial Court was subsequently confirmed by the First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment that the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 12(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for convenience).;


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