AWADHRAM BHOSLE Vs. GODAVARI KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed under Sec. 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') read with Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') is directed against the impugned order dtd. 27/7/2019 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant herein (landlord/plaintiff) under Sec. 23A of the Act of 1961 has been allowed and a decree of eviction has been passed in his favour vis-a-vis the applicant herein (tenant/defendant) has been directed to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the order.

(2.) The aforesaid impugned order dtd. 27/7/2019 has been challenged on the following factual backdrop that the original landlord/plaintiff, namely, Suderlal Kaushal, being retired government servant, has filed an application under Sec. 23A of the Act of 1961 claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide need to evict the defendant/tenant (applicant herein) and put the plaintiff/landlord in possession of the accommodation being Khasra No.763/78, Patwari Halka No.18, R.I.C.- Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) in which the defendant/tenant (applicant herein) is running a shop in the name and style of 'Anand Kirana and General Stores' since 15/10/1993. The said application was filed by the plaintiff/landlord on the ground that the plaintiff requires the said shop for business/non-residential purpose and he has no other suitable alternative accommodation of his own in the township of Durg. It has been further averred by the plaintiff/landlord that the said shop was in the name of plaintiff's wife and after her death the same has been transferred in his name and in the name of his daughter, namely, Godavari Kaushal. The plaintiff has retired from his service and wants to start a business alongwith his daughter's husband and he does not have any other shop in the city of Durg. During the pendency of the said application, on 4/2/2016, the original plaintiff died and the name of his daughter- Godavari Kaushal was substituted being his legal heir. Further, during the pendency of this revision, Godavari Kaushal also died and her legal heirs have been brought on record in this civil revision.

(3.) The tenant/defendant (applicant herein) filed its written statement before the Rent Controlling Authority opposing the said application filed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff has two more shops which have also been given on rent and the plaintiff has a shop in the same complex which he got vacated and is lying closed and the same can be used by him for his bonafide need to start a business. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for order of eviction.