PUKHRAJ GOLCHHA Vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendant/tenant challenging the impugned judgment and decree whereby the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has allowed and decreed the plaintiff's suit directing the appellant's eviction from the suit premises on the grounds enumerated under Sections 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent/plaintiff preferred a suit for the defendant/appellant's eviction from the non-residential suit premises which is part of a larger premises situated on plot No. 2112/2, at Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon, which was purchased by the plaintiff from one Dev Kishan Lakhotia by a registered sale deed dated 17-4-1998.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant is his tenant at a monthly tenancy of Rs. 250/-, as notice regarding purchase of the property was sent to the defendant by him as well as by the seller, however, the defendant failed to pay any rent to the plaintiff. Because of the said non-payment of rent, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22-5-2006 however, in spite of receipt of notice, the defendant did not tender the rent. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is engaged in agency business and has no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for satisfying his need and the plaintiff bonafidely needs the premises for expansion of his agency business which is otherwise cannot be fulfilled even if the possession of area ad measuring 5" x 30" is delivered to him by the other tenants in pursuance of the decree of eviction granted in plaintiffs favour in civil suit No. 201-A/2001 and Civil Appeal No. 28-A/2003 decided on 30-3-2006. The plaintiff also pleaded the ground of reconstruction under Section 12 (1)(g) of the Act on the ground that accommodation has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and is required bona fide for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated.

(3.) The defendant/appellant filed his written statement and stated that premises was taken on rent from Nathmal Mohta, husband of Geeta Devi. The said Geeta Devi died prior to the death of Nathmal Mohta and the couple was issueless. After their death, rent was recovered by Bal Kishan Lakhotia mentioning the name of late Geeta Devi in the receipt, however, the defendant is not aware about the relationship between Bal Kishan Lakhotia and Geeta Devi. The defendant denied to have any knowledge about the sale deed by which the plaintiff has purchased the property from Devi Kishan Lakhotia or as to how Devi Kishan Lakhotia received the property and became title holder and all these facts are required to be proved by the plaintiff and to seek eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act the plaintiff is required to prove his ownership over the property. For the first time the defendant came to know about the transaction between Devi Kishan Lakhotia and the plaintiff when he received legal notice dated 22-5-2006 and immediately after receipt of notice, the defendant paid arrears of rent from 17-4-1998 to 16-6-2006 amounting to Rs. 24,500/- without raising any dispute in this regard. However, subsequent money orders sent by the defendant were not accepted by the plaintiff. It was further stated by the defendant that the accommodation presently in possession of the plaintiff is sufficient for his business and he has obtained vacant possession of another shop from a tenant Shantilal Vaidya and another part of the purchased property is already in his occupation. It was further stated that after purchase of the property, he has constructed one 2 storied pucca building on an area admeasuring 15" x 50" and further that part of the total area in occupation of the plaintiff remains vacant, therefore, the plea of expansion of business and its bonafide need is absolutely false. It was also stated that the plaintiff owned one aluminum factory in Industrial Area, Rajnandgaon and the present projected need is mere desire and in fact, the plaintiff does not require premises for expansion of business. The plea of accommodation being unfit for human habitation and requirement of reconstruction/repair was also dented by the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff resides and carries on business as a member of the joint Hindu family and the said joint Hindu family has got enough alternative accommodation for satisfying the need of the plaintiff. Another part of the same house was purchased by the plaintiff's family in the name of his brother Sheetal Jain by a sale deed dated 23-6-1998 and since the family is joint, the need can be satisfied from the premises in possession of Sheetal Jain.