SHEO PRASAD GUPTA Vs. KAMAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up for final hearing through video conferencing.

(2.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff / appellant herein, now substituted by his legal representatives, was admitted for hearing on 1-7-2020 by formulating the following twin substantial questions of law: -

(3.) The suit shop bearing Plot No.44, Nazul Sheet No.18 situated at Sadar Bazaar, Bilaspur town, is the subject matter of dispute and is hereinafter referred to as suit accommodation, which was admittedly, owned by the plaintiff and let out to defendants No.1 and 2 on monthly rent of ? 300/- for non-residential purpose in which the defendants are carrying on laundry in the name and style of Kamal Washing House. The tenancy being monthly, commences from 1st day of each calendar month and ends on the last day of the said calendar month. The original plaintiff aged about 72 years was an Advocate by profession. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the side gali of the other part of the suit accommodation, some more rooms are situated in the same building out of which one room is being used by the plaintiff for his consultation room and he has no other accommodation in his possession for his office. It is the further case of the plaintiff that by way of oral family arrangement dated 20-11-1998, the suit accommodation was allotted to his son Anil Kumar Gupta, room situated at western side was allotted to his wife Smt. Lakshmi Gupta and the southern side room was retained by him and accordingly, intimation to defendants No.1 and 2 by notice Ex.P-1 dated 1-3-1999 was given informing them about the oral family arrangement and directing them to pay rent with effect from 21-11-1998 to his son Anil Kumar Gupta and to vacate the premises by 31-3-1998, reiterated by termination notice dated 12-3-2001 (Ex.P-4). But the defendants neither accepted Anil Kumar Gupta as landlord and owner of the suit accommodation nor paid rent and meanwhile, the portion of house allotted to him (plaintiff) was locked by the plaintiff's son Anil Kumar Gupta, thereby no accommodation is available to the plaintiff to carry on his profession and he has no other alternative accommodation in the township of Bilaspur and therefore the suit accommodation is required bona fidely for carrying on his practice as Advocate for his Chamber. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that the accommodation allotted to him was locked by his son in collusion with the defendants and since the defendants did not pay rent to his son Anil Kumar Gupta, the filing of suit was necessitated for getting the defendants evicted from the suit accommodation and after terminating the tenancy by sending notice (Ex.P-4) dated 12-3- 2001, suit was filed stating that he is entitled for eviction and arrears of rent by appropriate decree with costs.