ABHIJIT BOSE Vs. AJAY JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 7A/07 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) Before the trial Court, a Civil Suit No. 7A/2007 was filed by respondents/plaintiffs against the appellant Abhijit Bose (dead) regarding the arrears of rent for bona-fide need at plaintiff No. 2 (Deepak Kumar Jain) as Abhijit Bose was tenant of the disputed house and respondents are owner of the same house. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff added a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of Accommodation Control Act stating that defendant has disowned the title of the plaintiff and since the title was denied, the defendant is liable to be evicted on the ground of nuisance and other misconduct.

(3.) In his written statement, defendant denied all the allegation levelled by the plaintiff stating that neither the plaintiffs are owner of the disputed house nor he is the tenant of plaintiffs. One Naveen Patel filed an Eviction Suit through his agent Deepak Jain, plaintiff No.2, in Civil Suit No. 1A/2003 and the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21.02.2004. After dismissal of the Eviction Suit, he filed an appeal against that order in Civil Suit No. 53A/2004 but that appeal was also dismissed on 30.12.2004. The defendant has regularly paid his rent. The plaintiff had not purchased the suit shop which was tenanted to the defendant but actually some immovable property, which was residential house situated about 22-23 meters inside the highway, was purchased by the plaintiff. Thus, the property purchased by the plaintiffs does not involve the suit shop and the plaintiffs did not become the owner of the suit premises. The suit premises is not required to start business and need projected was sham and bogus and the bona-fide need, therefore, did not exist to get the decree under Section 12(1) of the Accommodation Control Act. It was further pleaded that when Bakkur Bhai, the landlord, was alive, the rent was received by him and, after his death, the rent was being collected by one Naveen Patel though it was not known whether the suit premises was owned by any of the heirs or not.