RAMANDAS PAMNANI Vs. MURLIDHAR VALECHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is First appeal filed under Sec. 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 9/9/2008 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2008 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction as the plaintiff is unable to plead and prove that the shop is required bonafidely for the need of grandson of the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that, the plaintiff, who at the time of aged about 85 years has filed Civil suit mainly contending that the plaintiff has constructed ground floor, first floor and second floor in the name and style as "Kiran Lodge Bhavan" situated at Gandhi Chowk, Gandhi Nagar Ward No. 30, Juna, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. He has constructed six commercial shops in the ground floor of premises. He has also constructed store rooms behind the shops and has also provided public utility facilities on the west side of shop no. 4 and 5. The defendant's father Kanhaiya Lal Valecha has taken the said shop on rent which is annexed in Schedule A of the plaint described as Shop no. 5, demarcated through A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Kanhaiyalal Valecha has expired and thereafter his son Murlidhar Valecha become the tenant. On 1/1/2004, the rent of the shop was fixed at Rs.1296.00 tenancy is as per English calendar month. It is contended by the plaintiff that the shop was bonafide required for the grandson of the plaintiff, as he has grown up and he intends to start his own business.

(3.) It is contended that even after expiry period of tenancy on 31/8/2006 the defendant has not vacated the shop and has not given the possession of the suit property. It is further contended that the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit property causing loss and has also not paid rent from 1/10/2005, therefore, plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property, arrears of rent with 20% of damages which comes to Rs.84,144.00. It has also been claimed in the plaint that the defendant has caused damages to the suit property as he has broken septic tank, go down situated behind the shop no. 4 and 5, illegal construction shed and also done illegal boring which has caused loss to the building. As such, damages were also sought by way of relief sought in the plaint.