LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-143

INDIRA KHER Vs. NIRMALA DEVI NATHANI

Decided On August 13, 2019
Indira Kher Appellant
V/S
Nirmala Devi Nathani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No.465/2015 preferred by the LRs of defendant No.1 (defendants No.1A to 1C) and defendants No.4 and 5 and Second Appeal No.491/2015 preferred by defendant No.3 were admitted for hearing by formulating the following common substantial questions of law: -

(2.) Shri Hanumandas Nathani - original plaintiff (owner and landlord) instituted Civil Suit No.86A/2007 on 4-5-1990 (he died during the pendency of suit and his legal representatives / present plaintiffs were substituted by order dated 29-1-1997) for eviction and damages against defendant No.1 Chamanlal Kher (who also died during the pendency of suit and his LRs were substituted by order dated 21-2-2000), and defendants No.2 to 5 - co-tenants from the suit accommodation commonly known as Nathani Bhawan, a double storied building, let out for non-residential purpose (that is for carrying on the business of restaurant / hotel and cooler), situated at Shastri Chowk, Raipur on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') - unlawful letting out of the suit property by the tenant; Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 that the suit accommodation let out for non-residential purpose is required for the purpose of continuing or starting their business and they are owners thereof and they have no other reasonably suitable vacant alternative accommodation; and Section 12(1)(m) of the Act of 1961 that the tenant without permission of the landlord made constructions and has materially altered the accommodation to the detriment of the landlord's interest, stating inter alia that the ground floor was leased out in the year 1959 and the first floor was leased out on 1-1-1966 for which the original defendant No.1 executed rent notes in favour of the original plaintiff incorporating and acknowledging the terms of contract of tenancy for the ground floor in the year 1969 and for the first floor on 15-7- 1967. Tenancy of the deceased defendant No.1 in respect of the suit accommodation was monthly, according to English calendar month commencing from the first day of same calendar month and expires with the last day of same calendar month and monthly rent was ? 2,317-. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 - the original tenant, while carrying on the business, has changed the suit accommodation making alterations / additions showing the business and without prior consent in writing has unlawfully sublet the part of suit accommodation to defendants No.2 to 5, whereas the agreement between the original plaintiff - landlord and the original defendant No.1 - tenant specifically bars subletting. The original defendant No.1 has delivered possession of portion shown with letter 'C' to defendant No.2, portion shown with letters 'D' and 'E' to defendant No.3, portion shown with letter 'F' to defendant No.4 and it was also pleaded that the original defendant No.1 was planning to deliver possession of portion shown with letters 'G' and 'H' to defendant No.5. It was also pleaded that the suit accommodation is bona fidely required for the plaintiffs for continuing their business managed by Rajkishore Nathani and Vijay Kumar Nathani and the plaintiffs are not having other reasonably suitable non-residential vacant accommodation of their own in the township of Raipur. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are carrying on the business of wholesale dealers in medicine and they are also distributors of Hindustan Lever products, but carrying on their business in rented premises and they have taken godowns on rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction against defendant No.1 (tenant) and defendants No.4 and 5 (co-tenants) on the grounds mentioned herein-above - Sections 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(m) of the Act of 1961.

(3.) After the death of original plaintiff Hanumandas Nathani, the plaint was amended by newly substituted plaintiffs on 29-1-1987 stating inter alia that they have inherited the suit accommodation as legal heirs. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were / are carrying on the business in partnership in the name and style of (i) M/s. S.K. Commercial Company, area about 1,000 sq.ft. at Medical Complex; (ii) Shri Krishna Distributors, area about 1,000 sq.ft. at Medical Complex; and (iii) Shri Krishna Commercial Company, behind the suit accommodation area about 2,000 sq.ft. Other members of the plaintiffs' family are partners in these business. It was also pleaded that apart from the above business, the plaintiffs are carrying on the business of watches in a rented accommodation situated at Farishta Complex in partnership with others and paying rent. It was further pleaded that the accommodation situated behind the suit accommodation where at present the plaintiffs are carrying on the business of products of Hindustan Lever in a old structure having constructed area of 2,000 sq.ft. is in dilapidated condition, without amenities, which is unsafe. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit accommodation is a pukka double storied construction having total area of about 7,000 sq.ft. with all modern amenities and is situated on the main road (G.E. Road). It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs and their family members are carrying other business in Medical Complex and Farishta Complex paying monthly rent of ? 2,000/- in Medical Complex and ? 1,600/- in Farishta Complex. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 supervise and are managing all business. They are finding it difficult to manage all business from different places. They can easily and very well manage all their business referred in the plaint, if all the business are shifted at once place in the suit accommodation. The suit accommodation is large enough where the plaintiffs can shift all their business. By doing this, the plaintiffs will effectively and properly run and manage all their business and save money. This will boost their business also. It was finally pleaded that the plaintiffs are receiving monthly rent of ? 2317-50 and paying monthly rent much more than this amount.