SURENDRA SINGH AMODIYA Vs. MISHRI LAL KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.300-A/2014, whereby the trial Court has decreed the Plaintiff's claim for eviction on the ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). 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 the Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming eviction of the Defendant from the suit premises on the ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(b) and (f) of the Act of 1961. According to him, the Defendant was inducted in the suit premises i.e. Shop Nos.3 & 4 having area of 12' x 15' = 180 sq.ft under the written tenancy dated 06.07.2005 for a period of 11 months as described in red colour in Plaint Schedule 'A' situated in front of Hotel Ajit, Telipara road, Juna Bilaspur which are constructed over the land bearing Khasra No.367/14 admeasuring 0.02 acres. It is pleaded in the Plaint that the Plaintiff needs the suit shops bona fidely for carrying out the business of himself and also for his sons and daughters for which, a reasonable and suitable accommodation is not available with him in the concerned city of Bilaspur, while the Defendant has other premises available with him for his business. It is pleaded further that without his consent, the Defendant had sub-let the suit premises to someone else illegally and pleaded further that he has failed to pay him the rent for a period of 25 months commencing w.e.f. April, 2006 up to April, 2008 which goes to Rs.1,15,000/- despite his oral and written notice being given. Therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 01.04.2008.

(3.) While denying the alleged bona fide need of the Plaintiff, it is stated by the Defendant that he was inducted as a tenant by his father Mahadev Prasad Kashyap in the year 1992 and now he is continuously in possession at the monthly rent of Rs.4,600/-. While denying further the creation of sub-tenancy, it is contested further on the ground that after the death of the Plaintiff's father, the suit premises will be inherited by all his heirs and the Plaintiff alone will not be the sole owner of it, and therefore, the suit as brought by him is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded further that the entire rent of Rs.1,15,000/- has been deposited in CCD on 16.05.2008 with the permission of the Court.