N.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments of the two learned Courts below in a suit for eviction from the suit shop.
(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed the present suit for eviction on 30.11.1992 inter-alia on the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff of course also pleading the elements of comparative hardship and partial eviction The allegations are that the defendant has committed default in payment of monthly rent since 31.12.89. Regarding bonafide requirement it was pleaded that the plaintiff's brother Girdhari Lal carries on the business of utensils in the adjoining shop, the plaintiff has completed his education and has learnt the business with his brother. According to the plaintiff, since the brother's shop is small the business cannot be expanded apart from the fact that Girdhari Lal himself also has a big family. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has requisite financial resources, and has no other shop. Regarding defendants it was pleaded that they are of sound financial condition and have other shops in good market. Looking to the size the non-feasibility of partial eviction was pleaded. According to the plaintiff he had purchased the shop from the erstwhile owner Savitri Devi by registered sale deed 26.6.89, and that defendants were pleaded to be the existing tenants having been inducted by Savitri Devi.
(3.) THE defendant in the written statement pleaded to have paid the rent up to Jeth Sudi Chhath Samvat 2045. Regarding default it was pleaded that the plaintiff did not receive rent despite tender and also declined to issue receipt. Other pleadings of the plaintiff regarding grounds of eviction were denied. In additional pleadings, the theory of purchase of premises by the plaintiff was denied on the ground that the consideration for the purchase is so grossly inadequate that the transaction appears to be "Farji," and that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the erstwhile owner Savitri Devi. Regarding comparative hardship it was pleaded that the plaintiff is a member of joint Hindu family of his father and brother, plaintiff does not have financial resource or experience, the defendants's shop is an established one for the last more than 50 years, and substantial amounts outstanding in the customers will be lost in the event of eviction, the defendant cannot get any other shop, and thus he will be rendered jobless.;