SARDAR CUR CHARAN SINGH Vs. PURUSHOTTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in appeal before us. The premises wherein the appellant is carrying on his business is owned by the respondent landlord. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the grounds that he bona fide requires the shop for running his own business and also for reconstruction of the building after demolition as the building is in a dilapidated condition. The eviction was also sought on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The trial court found that the need set up by the landlord was bona fide and the building required reconstruction after demolition. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The tenant preferred an appeal against the said decree before the first appellate court. The first appellate court taking a curious view partly allowed the appeal. The first appellate court held that in case the landlord who is a tenant of a shop in the Municipal Market vacates the said shop, the decree for eviction against the tenant then would be executable.

(2.) Aggrieved, the landlord preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court found that such condition was totally illegal in view of the fact that the Municipal Board was not a party to the litigation. Consequently, the condition imposed by the first appellate court was set aside by the High Court and the appeal was allowed.

(3.) Against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us. We have heard the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that although he is unable to assail the findings of the courts below but in view of the subsequent events that have taken place, the orders passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that during the pendency of this appeal one of the tenants of the respondent landlord Mohd. Yakoob vacated a shop in February 1999. According to the landlord, the said shop is only 4 x 5 feet in area and it is occupied by his son who is running an ice cream parlour there and, therefore, there is no vacant space left available with the landlord where he can run his business. The landlord also asserted that the appellant tenant has another premises in the Sunday Market, which is in the name of his wife Harbans Kaur. The address of the premises is House No. 1, Ward No. 16, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh. It is a double-storeyed building and is situated in the market area and suitable for the appellant to continue his business therein. This assertion of the landlord has not been denied by the tenant. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that the tenant would suffer any hardship if he were required to vacate the premises. No other contention was raised in this appeal.