JHAWARLAL BOTHARA Vs. KUSUMLATA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the Defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 09-02-1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/1994by the VIth Additional District Judge, Raipur. The lower appellate Court has, while reversing the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1993, whereby the suit for eviction of the Appellant/Defendant passed by XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 107-A/1991 was dismissed, granted eviction of the tenant under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the Appellant/Defendant is the tenant of the Respondent/Plaintiff in shop No. 3 let out for non-residential purpose (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit shop') situated on Great Eastern Road, Tatibandh, Raipur in front of Bharatmata School. An earlier Civil Suit No. 41-A/90 instituted by the Respondent/Plaintiff in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur during the minority of her son Adesh Kumar for eviction of the Appellant/Defendant-tenant on ground of bona fide requirement for Adesh Kumar under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn by the Respondent/Plaintiff.

(3.) THE Appellant/Defendant denied the above and pleaded that after withdrawal of earlier suit, a similar adjacent accommodation i.e. shop No. 4 let out by the Plaintiff had fallen vacant twice and was lastly let on 1.9.1989 to M.K. Juice Center. On 23.02.1992 the tenant in M.K. Juice Center had delivered vacant possession of shop No. 4 to the Respondent/Plaintiff, which was available to the Respondent/Plaintiff. It was denied that the Appellant/Defendant had sublet the suit shop. It was also pleaded that date of birth of Adesh Kumar Agrawal, a minor on the date of suit, was 6.2.1973. THErefore, no cause of action for eviction of the tenant under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act arose in favour of the Plaintiff on the date of suit. Requirement of the Plaintiff was not bona fide as she intended to enhance the rent and did not require the suit shop bona fide for starting business for her son.