MUKESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA Vs. PIPARIA ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER
LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-43
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
June 25,2018
Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha
Appellant
VERSUS
Piparia Enterprises And Another
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMA RAO AND OTHERS VS. SHANTIBAI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]HARBANS SINGH (LT. COL.) VS. SMT. MARGRET G. BHINGARDIVE [REFERRED TO]
DEVI VS. NATHURAM [REFERRED TO]
ANIL TIWARI AND OTHERS VS. SAHEB SINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
DILBAGRAI PUNJABI VS. SHARAD CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
MAJATI SUBBARAO VS. P V K KRISHNA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
DEENA NATH VS. POORAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
R C TAMRAKAR VS. NIDI LEKHA [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA VS. FIRM PRAHLAD RAI PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
SHEELA VS. FIRM PRAHLAD RAI PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN TATYABA KANKATE VS. TARAMATI HARISHCHANDRA DHATRAK [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN VS. SHAMBHULAL KRISHNA KUMAR SUHANE [REFERRED TO]
HAKIMUDDIN SAIFI VS. PREM NARAYAN BARCHHIHA [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR HARBANS SINGH VS. SHAILESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR JAIN VS. USHA MUKHARIYA [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA SARKAR VS. ANIL KUMAR DUTTANI [REFERRED TO]
RAM VISHAL ALIAS VISHALI KACHHWAHA VS. DWARKA PRASAD JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL DAS VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD GAUTAM [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR KRISHNA PROSAD LAL SINGH DEO VS. BARABONI COAL CONCERN, LTD [REFERRED TO]
PRAMILA NAHAR VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR GUJARATI [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Anand Pathak, J -
(1.)The present appeal under Section 100 CPC is being preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28/02/2004 passed by III Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.16/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30/05/2002 passed by V Civil Judge Class-I in Civil Suit No.121- A/2000 has been reversed and suit preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff has been dismissed.
(2.)Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that appellant/ plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against M/s Pipariya Enterprises through its partners (respondent No.1 herein). It is stated in the plaint that respondent No.1-defendant is a tenant in the shop owned by the appellant/ plaintiff @ Rs.450 per month. It is also stated that defendant executed the rent note on 28/03/1986 on behalf of other parties as a power of attorney holder. As per the submissions, defendant failed to pay the rent from 01/04/1991 inspite of the written notice dated 18/10/1991 therefore, it is further stated that the suit shop is required for the business of General Merchant/ Cosmetic and appellant/plaintiff is not having any other suitable and alternative shop for this purpose. Appellant/ plaintiff also stated in the plaint that he filed a suit against one tenant Bhagwan Das also and the said suit was decreed and after having possession of the shop, appellant/ plaintiff started business in the name and style of Shivam Furniture and General Store, but that shop is not sufficient in space to carry on business therefore, he is not able to do his business in systematic manner and is not able to display his goods/products properly therefore, suit shop was required bonafide for his business.
(3.)Other pleading in respect of causing nuisance in the disputed shop was also raised by the plaintiff wherein defendant constructed the overhead water tank causing leakage and seepage causing nuisance. Plea of sub-letting the tenanted premise was also raised by the plaintiff besides other pleadings.
(2.)Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that appellant/ plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against M/s Pipariya Enterprises through its partners (respondent No.1 herein). It is stated in the plaint that respondent No.1-defendant is a tenant in the shop owned by the appellant/ plaintiff @ Rs.450 per month. It is also stated that defendant executed the rent note on 28/03/1986 on behalf of other parties as a power of attorney holder. As per the submissions, defendant failed to pay the rent from 01/04/1991 inspite of the written notice dated 18/10/1991 therefore, it is further stated that the suit shop is required for the business of General Merchant/ Cosmetic and appellant/plaintiff is not having any other suitable and alternative shop for this purpose. Appellant/ plaintiff also stated in the plaint that he filed a suit against one tenant Bhagwan Das also and the said suit was decreed and after having possession of the shop, appellant/ plaintiff started business in the name and style of Shivam Furniture and General Store, but that shop is not sufficient in space to carry on business therefore, he is not able to do his business in systematic manner and is not able to display his goods/products properly therefore, suit shop was required bonafide for his business.
(3.)Other pleading in respect of causing nuisance in the disputed shop was also raised by the plaintiff wherein defendant constructed the overhead water tank causing leakage and seepage causing nuisance. Plea of sub-letting the tenanted premise was also raised by the plaintiff besides other pleadings.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.