RAM RATHI Vs. SUNITA DEVI SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 17.02.2005 passed by District Judge, Rajnangdaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2003, wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 to 5/ plaintiffs against the original defendant Radhakishan Rathi (Present appellants are legal representatives of said Radhakishan Rathi) for eviction of suit premise situated at Bharkapara, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) which is a cinema theatre named and styled as Kamal Chhaya Mandir and open land in south of the said premise.

(2.) As per the appellants, the original suit has been filed against the original defendant namely Radhakishan Rathi who died after passing of judgment/decree on 28.02.2005. It is pleaded that the premise in question is owned by respondent No. 1 to 3/ plaintiffs who are legal heirs of Late Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Late Radheshyam. The premise was given on rent by Smt. Kamla Devi along with open space on south side. The rent of suit property was Rs. 1500/- per month and map of the premise is Appendix-A attached with the plaint. Father of respondent No. 1 to 3 namely Radheshyam expired in the year 1995 and Smt. Kamla Devi died on 18.12.1999. Respondent No. 1 to 3 are daughters of Radheshyam and Smt. Kamla Devi and during her lifetime, Smt. Kamla Devi executed a will on 16.01.1989 giving the property in question to respondent No. 1 to 3. After death of Smt. Kamla Devi, the information was given to the original defendant, but the rent was not paid. Respondent No. 5-Chandra Kant Chitlangya is having general power of attorney holder from respondent No. 1 to 3. Earlier the rent was paid to Smt. Kamla Devi and after death of Smt. Kamla Devi, a request was made to the deceased defendant to pay them rent, but the rent is not paid and an application was submitted by the original defendant to the Rent Control Authority for depositing the rent from November, 1999. The rent was not paid even after issuance of notice.

(3.) It is further case of respondent No. 1 to 3 that the suit property has also been subletted and an hotel, a betal shop and a saloon given on rent by the original defendant. The other ground for eviction is that the suit property is bonafidely required to respondent No. 1 to 3 for running a theatre and they have no alternative suitable accommodation at Rajnandgaon to run the theatre. The other ground is that since last 45 years, the property is not maintained properly, therefore, the same requires extensive repair and it is in dilapidated condition and without vacating the property, the repair is not possible. As per written statement filed in the present case, the other side has opposed all the pleadings and after recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court passed the decree as mentioned above.