SATYA PRAKASH Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs/appellants instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent mainly with the allegations that the defendant in thesuit shop is a tenant @ Rs. 200/- p.m. under the oral agreement of tenancycreated in the month of March, 1977. Plaintiffs Kamal Prakash and Narayandaswere unemployed and they required the suit shop to start a business of ready-made garments. Suit was instituted on 11-4-1989. It was alleged in the plaint thatthe defendant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-3-1989. By way of amendment, itwas stated that two of the plaintiffs, namely, Satya Prakash and Kamal Prakashhad earlier instituted a suit against Manoharlal in the year 1981 for the bona fideneed of Kamal Prakash. Due to family circumstances, the shop was occupied byGopaldas, the plaintiff No. 3 who started his business in the shop vacated byManoharlal in the year 1982. Adjoining shop is occupied by Gopaldas, plaintiffNo. 3.

(2.) Defendant/respondent submitted his written statement denying therebyclaim of the plaintiffs. It was contended that the house comprising the suit shopwas purchased by Satya Prakash and Kamal Prakash alone vide registered sale-deed dated 17-11-1951 and they alone are the owners of it. Gopaldas andNarayandas have no right, title or interest in the suit shop. Earlier, the defendantwas also in occupation of the shop adjoining the suit shop. Half of the portionwas vacated by the defendant which is in occupation of plaintiffs No. 2 and 4,who were running their business in it. Remaining suit shop is in occupation of thedefendant. Plaintiff No. 1 Satya Prakash is running his business at Jaipur. SinceNarayandas is not owner of the suit shop, suit on the basis of his alleged need is (Gwalior) not maintainable. Kamal Prakash whose need is also projected got vacated half ofthe portion of the shop of the defendant and is running his business in such aportion. Shop vacated by Manoharlal is not occupied by Gopaldas but is inoccupation of Kamal Prakash and Narayandas who are running their business ofSamose, Kachodi and tea etc. in it. Thus, the suit is liable to dismissal. It isfurther stated that the defendant was inducted in the suit shop by Kamal Prakashand Satya Prakash, who alone are the owners of the suit shop. Defendant is not atenant of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 and no eviction can be sought on the allegedneed of Narayandas, plaintiff No. 4.

(3.) Learned trial Judge after recording the evidence dismissed the suit of theplaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 31-1-2000 with a finding that theplaintiffs No. 1 and 2 alone are the owners of the suit shop. They obtained thevacant possession of one shop from another tenant Manoharlal through Civil SuitNo. 13 A/81 on the ground of their own need. The alleged need of plaintiffs No. 2and 4 was not found proved. It was further found that the plaintiffs No. 3 and 4were wrongly joined despite having no right, title or interest in the suit shop.