- (1.) THE defendant tenants have filed the present appeal against the eviction decree dated 14/2/2012 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 100/2011 (Original Suit No. 72/2002 ï ¿ 1/2 M/s Shrinath Complex vs. Ravindra Kumar & Anr.) on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiff landlord, a registered partnership firm.
(2.) THE suit premises, a shop, in question was given to the present appellants -tenants in May 1989, who set up its business of selling children toys known as, "Kids Kingdom" on monthly rent of Rs.5000/ - by the predecessor in title, Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Shanker Lal, who sold the suit premises in June, 1992 to the present respondent -plaintiff and landlord M/s. Shrinath Complex, a registered partnership firm and defendant tenants continued to remain tenants of present plaintiff. The tenants did not pay any rent for about ten years, 117 months to be precise i.e. from 1.11.1992 till 31.7.2002 and on the other hand, the defendant tenant also filed suit on 20/10/1992 for reducing the monthly rent and fixation of standard rent of the suit premises at Rs. 1450/ - per month in which suit the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 was fixed by the learned trial court on 5/12/1992 at Rs. 1450/ -. Against the provisional rent fixation under Section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, the landlord filed an appeal on 4/1/1993 before the learned Addl. District Judge, which was allowed on 29/7/1999 and opportunity was given to the landlord to lead evidence about the rent against which the tenant filed revision petition before the High Court, from where the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court on 16/10/2000. However, thereafter, the tenant got its suit for fixation of standard rent dismissed for want of appearance & defendant tenant withdrew back the deposited rent from the trial court. On the basis of default in payment of rent for more than six months from 1/11/1992 to 31/7/2002 for 117 months @ Rs.5000/ - per month amounting to Rs.5,80,000/ -, and for bonafide & reasonable need the landlord filed a suit for eviction in the year 2002 on 30/8/2002 viz. Suit No.72/2002 which has come to be decreed by the learned court below on both these grounds by the impugned judgment and eviction decree dated 14/2/2012. Learned counsel for the appellant -defendant -tenants submitted that there was no default in payment of rent as entire arrears of rent of Rs.5,80,000/ - has since been paid by the tenants and the learned court below itself has held that arrears of rent for the period June 1992 to December, 1998 had become time barred being due for more than three years period and defendant tenant is now regularly paying monthly rent of Rs.5000/ - and, therefore, ground of default in payment of rent does not remain. Learned counsels for the appellant -defendants further submitted that there was no bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiff - respondent landlord as the shop of toys known as 'Kids Kingdom' set up by the defendant tenants is in the area of about 750 sq.ft. out of 1100 sq.ft. space on the ground floor of five storied building of the plaintiff respondent and the plaintiff has remaining 270 sq.ft. available with it for establishing the Reception and Restaurant of the Hotel, which they propose to open in the said building, and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any need of the landlord to get the defendant tenant evicted. Learned counsel for the appellant -defendants further vehemently urged that the tenant has established his shop since 1989 and alternative accommodation of setting up the Reception and Restaurant is available to the plaintiff on the first floor of the five storied building,which after purchase of the property was let out by the respondent landlord to some other tenant, where the ready made garment business in the name and style of 'Decent Look' was established by the said tenant. They also submitted that since purchase of the property, the landlord had not commenced any hotel business and had given the remaining floors to one Topaz Hotel, who was running the said hotel for last 4 -5 years and, therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord requires the disputed suit premises for establishing Reception and Restaurant, so as to seek eviction of the defendant tenant.
(3.) LEARNED counsels for the appellant -defendant read the statement of P.W.1 -Sobhagya Singh, a partner of the landlord firm, M/s Shrinath Complex and his cross examination in detail. Learned counsels for the appellant -defendants, despite opportunity granted, have neither filed any written submission nor even provided the list of case laws in support of their case. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -plaintiff vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellant -defendant -tenants and submitted that the tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord as to whether they should have the Reception and Restaurant of their hotel business at the ground floor or first floor of the five storied building; whether they should have the Reception of the hotel only in 270 sq.ft. of triangular space left after the measurement of suit shop of 750 sq. ft.; whether the triangular space available at the ground floor with the landlord measuring 14.5 ft. at the front, 30 ft. deep and 4 ft. at the back side is proper for Reception or not and whether giving of remaining floors to another tenant to keep the building in maintained condition was proper or not. They also submitted that the first floor accommodation given to another tenant, M/s Decent Look cannot be used for the Reception and Restaurant for which easy access would be available only at the ground floor and this cannot be disputed and denied. They further submitted that the appellant tenant soon after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff respondent deliberately and mischievously did not pay rent for 117 months from June 1992 till July 2002 and on the contrary filed suit for reduction of rent which also deliberately after 8 -10 years of contest upto High Court, the suit was got dismissed for default of appearance in the year 2000 and in the present suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff -respondent also, the defendant tenant has filed cross suit for reduction of rent even though since May 1989, at the point of time of taking the tenancy, the rent was being paid at the rate of Rs.5000/ - per month without demur and now looking to the increase in the market price and rental value, the rent of the shop in question even in the year 2002 could not be less than Rs.15,000/ - per month.;