CENTRAL AUTOMOBILES Vs. SAURABH NATHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/6/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2012 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the part of the suit house No. 39/25 to 32 to plaintiff within two months on the ground that despite getting protection under Sec. 13(1) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961') the tenant committed default in payment of rent for three consecutive months and also directed to pay the rent from the date of the judgment to the date of handing over the suit premises.

(2.) The parties are referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts as reflected from the plaint's averments are that plaintiff has filed the civil suit for eviction, vacant possession and recovery of arrears of rent for the suit property part of House no. 39/25 to 32 situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Jawahar Nagar Ward, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') under the provision of Sec. 12 (1) (a), (d) and (h) of the Act, 1961 contending that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the said property described in map attached to the plaint was given to the defendant for commercial use on rent of Rs.2700.00 per month. It has been contended that the defendant is not using the suit property for which it was rented and is not paying the rent for the last 5 years. It has also been contended that as per law he can only claim rent for 3 years therefore, he has filed the suit for claiming recovery of arrears of rent for 3 years amounting to Rs.97,200.00. The plaintiff also claimed the damages at the rate of Rs.100.00 per day. It has been further contended that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his bonafide need as the premises is in very dilapidated condition, as such, it is unsafe for use of humanbeing. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has already decided to reconstruct the suit premises and is having sufficient fund and plan for construction. The defendant had last paid the rent in the month of April, 2011, thereafter, the plaintiff demanded for handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises, but the defendant has not vacated the suit premises which has necessitated him to file the present suit.