MANOJ MOTWANI Vs. DARSHAN KAUR AHLUWALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 36/2014 whereby, the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur while affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed by 5th Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 147-A/2011, has dismissed the appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt. Darshan Kaur Ahluwaliya, instituted a suit for eviction in respect of Shop No.3, the suit shop, comprising of Mohan Singh Market situated at Jawaharlal Nehru Ward No.15, M.G. Road, Raipur, which was let out to defendant Shri Manoj Mojwani, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1331/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty One Only) on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961'). It is pleaded in the plaint that the alleged suit shop is required bonafidely for her unemployed son Hardeep Singh Ahluwaliya for carrying out the business of 'Motor Parts and Accessories' and for the said purpose, suitable and alternative accommodation is not available to her in the city of Raipur. It is pleaded further that despite the issuance of quit notice, issued on 30.04.2008, the defendant did not vacate the suit shop, giving rise to the institution of the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 17.06.2008.

(3.) The aforesaid claim has been contested by the defendant denying specifically the alleged need of the plaintiff for carrying out the said business of her son. According to him, the plaintiff's entire family is settled at Jabalpur, where her son is doing his business, as such, the plaintiff's alleged need cannot be said to be a genuine one. It is contested further on the ground that the plaintiff has sold one of her shops, which was adjacent to the suit shop, to someone and wanted to alienate the suit shop to him also, but, owing to non-settlement of the price, it could not be sold and, therefore, the suit has been filed with a malafide intention to get it vacated somehow or the other.