KACHARU LAL AGRAWAL Vs. BHIKHAM CHAND KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant/tenant's second appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/1998 by Shri Sharad Gupta, Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, whereby reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit for eviction passed by Civil Judge Class I, Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 39-A/1993 vide judgment dated 17-3-1998, the appeal was allowed granting eviction of the tenant upon termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (henceforth 'the Act, 1882').

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, it was not disputed that the suit accommodation, which is situated in Gandai, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon does not fall within the First Schedule of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act, 1961') and, therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1961 were not applicable to the suit accommodation. It is also not disputed in this appeal that the appellant/defendant is the tenant of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit accommodation situated in Gandai, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon at a monthly rent of Rs. 87.50. It is also admitted that the appellant/defendant had replaced the wooden door providing entry to the suit accommodation and had affixed a new iron shutter in its place.

(3.) THE appellant/defendant pleaded that in March, 1993 the wooden door at the entry of the suit accommodation was completely damaged and replacement had become necessary. THErefore, he had with the prior permission of the respondent/plaintiff replaced the damaged wooden door by a new iron shutter in which he incurred expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. It was also pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had agreed that the expenses incurred in replacement of the wooden door by an iron shutter would be adjusted towards monthly rent. In this manner, on the date of suit, the appellant/defendant was not in arrears of rent. It was also denied that the suit accommodation was in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate repairs. Receipt of notice dated 12-7-1993 was also denied.