THAKURDAS SONI Vs. SADASHIV RAM DEVKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2003 passed by the learned Vlllth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 1 A/2003 arising out of judgment and decree dated 22-8-1997 passed by the Civil Judge Class- I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 367A/2002 whereby the learned Civil Judge Class- I decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellant/defendant for eviction of the suit premises.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this second appeal are that the plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur against the defendant/appellant herein for eviction of the disputed premises described as 'GHIJG' in paragraph 4 of the plaint on the ground that in the suit premises the defendant is carrying on the business of gold and silver jewellery and he is tenant in that shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- (Rupees Fifty Five) per month. He took that shop on rent from the previous landlords namely Sadhuram Agrawal and Rakesh Agrawal from whom the plaintiffs/respondents had purchased the suit premises along with other properties vide sale deeds dated 22-4-1992 and 23-4-1992 and about the said fact previous landlords as well as the plaintiff informed the defendant. They further averred that the tenant-defendant neither paid the rent nor tendered the rent, therefore, he is defaulter and liable to be evicted from the suit premises. They also sought eviction on the ground that the sons of both the plaintiffs are in need of disputed premises for running the shop of gold and silver jewellery as well as for refinery of jewellery, as they are unemployed and there is no other alternative non-residential accommodation is available to them for running the said business. The defendant/appellant has filed written statement and denied the need of the plaintiffs.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission.