JAFARBHAI AMIRBHAI Vs. SHANTABAI GANGADHAR KAMLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dtd. 27/06/2023, passed by the learned District Judge - 17, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.430/2016 and judgment and decree dtd. 02/05/2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2004.

(2.) The appellants in the present appeal are legal representatives of the original defendant. The respondent is legal representative of original plaintiff. The suit was filed, seeking decree of eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction with possession and damages. The case of the plaintiff is that she is owner of the suit property, which comprises of land bearing Survey No.88 admeasuring 0.74 acres, situated at Ramtek, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur. It is the case of the plaintiff that out of the said land, a portion of land admeasuring 3500 sq. ft. (35 ft. East-West and 100 ft. North-South) was granted on lease to the defendant around 25 years before the institution of suit. The case of the plaintiff is that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy commencing from first day of each English calendar month and expiring on the last date thereof. The rent is stated to be Rs.100.00 p.m. The lease pertains to open plot. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was irregular in making payment of rent since 01/03/2001 and that the Sawmill, for which the suit property was leased, was closed and instead, the defendant had started a hardware of shop and flour mill in the suit property since around four years prior to institution of the suit. The plaintiff also claimed that she was in need of the suit property for personal use.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement opposing the suit. Although in response to the paragraphs in the plaint, the defendant denied each and every averment made therein, in the specific pleadings, the defendant admitted that he was admitted as a tenant in the suit property in the year 1969. It is stated that the lease was with respect to open land. The defendant has contended that he has made construction over the suit property from his own funds. The defendant further stated that the lease was for manufacturing purposes and that it could be terminated only by issuance of six months notice. The defendant contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed, since notice, terminating tenancy was received by him on 10/03/2004 and the suit was instituted on 01/04/2004. The defendant also contended that the lease was not restricted to area of 3500 sq. ft. and that the entire field to the Southern side of the Ramtek-Tumsar road was let to him on lease. The defendant also contended that the lease was for a period exceeding one year and since it was not registered, it was inadmissible in evidence.