RADHACHARAN Vs. BHAGIRATHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2018 passed in Civil Suit No. A/124/2009 by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the suit preferred by Respondent/Plaintiff Bhagirathi Sharma(died) has been allowed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the original Plaintiff Bhagirathi Sharma filed a suit before the Court below for eviction and arrears of rent against the Appellant/Tenant. The Plaintiff is the owner of four shops and entire shops is around 667 Sqft. and shop in question is 10 x 22 = 220 Sqft. marked as Shop No.3 in Schedule 'A' of the plaint situated at Thana Road, Raigarh (C.G.) which was given on rent to the Appellant/Tenant on 6/12/1996 on the basis of monthly rent of Rs.1,000.00, eventually the rent was increased to Rs.150.00 which comes to Rs.1150.00 rent of the shop in question. The Appellant/Tenant paid the rent of shop @ 1150/- till may 2007, thereafter, he is not paying the rent till date. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff having three sons and the eldest son Respondent No.II Rajendra Kumar Sharma having three sons namely Amit Sharma, Sumit Sharma and Prateek Sharma, they jointly running a business of lath machine factory, but the middle son of the Respondent raised some dispute in house which resulting mutual oral partition amongst the family. Consequently, all three sons got their partition in the joint family property. Elder son of the Respondent got shop in question in his partition, therefore, Plaintiff feels bonafide requirement of the shop in question, but the Appellant/Tenant denied to evict the shop in question, he also changed the object of the shop given on rent. It was further pleaded that Appellant/Tenant is also not paying the rent from the year 2007, therefore, on these two grounds, the suit for vacation was filed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) After service of notice, Appellant/Tenant appeared before the Civil Court and filed his written statement by denying all the avernments pleaded in the plaint except the admitted fact.