DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. MURARI LAL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 31-3-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC), Pendra Road (CG) in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2006 wherein the said court dismissed the suit filed by Ramsharan and Dwarika Prasad and Sudarshan Prasad/original plaintiffs for eviction of respondent from shop which is mentioned and marked in red ink in Schedule-A of the plaint situated at village Gourela, Pendra Road.

(2.) Eviction suit was fled by the appellants against the respondent that property in question is owned by Ramsharan and Santoshilal who acquired property by way of purchase on 15-2-1977 from one Ajit Pratap Singh and others. Appellant Dwarika Prasad and original appellant Sudarshan Prasad were sons of Ramsharan. Dwarika Prasad has three sons namely Deepak, Prakash and Subhash and Sudarshan Prasad had two sons namely Vikash and Vivek. In civil suit No. 4-A/2003 there was compromise between Ramsharan and Santoshilal and thereafter Ramsharan was absolute owner of the property in question. Ramsharan has six son and there was oral partition between six sons on 7-3-2016 and subsequently it was registered on 29-3-2006. The premise in question was given on rent to respondent for his business and he is tenant for the last twenty years. The respondent earlier assured that he will vacate the premise in question on 20-11-1997 but he did not vacate the premise and did not deposit the rent after 7-11-1997. Rent is Rs.12/- per month. A notice was served on respondent on 13-2-2006 and it was replied by the respondent as per Ex.P/27 dated 5-3-2006. Even after notice the premise in question was not vacated by the respondent. The premise in question is bonafidely required for sons of the appellants for starting jewellery business and there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to them in the locality of Gourela. It is further case of the appellants that the respondent created nuisance and he is liable to be evicted under Sections 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act, 1961"), but the trial court dismissed the suit contrary to factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit as under: