TEJKARAN Vs. MEERADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of defendant tenant in the eviction suit challenging the judgment of the first appellate court dated 29th March 2005 dismissing the first appeal No. 62-A/2004 and affirming the judgment of the trial court. The trial Court by judgment dated 13/9/04 in CS No. 27-A/2001 had decreed the suit for eviction filed by respondent landlord.

(2.) The respondent landlord had filed the suit for eviction pleading that the suit shop was let out to the appellant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 960 and it was required by the respondent for expansion of the medical profession of her husband Vijay Kumar and son Manoj Sanghai. It was further pleaded that the suit accommodation was also required for her son Manoj Sanghai for his engineering business. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the suit accommodation was sublet by appellant No. 1 to appellant No.2. Inspite of the termination of tenancy on 21/1/2000, the appellants had not vacated the suit premises, therefore, the suit for eviction was filed. The appellants had opposed the suit pleading that the respondent was not in bonafide need of the suit premises and she had alternate suitable accommodation. The other grounds raised in the suit were also denied.

(3.) Trial court by judgment dated 13/9/04 had decreed the suit finding that the respondent was in bonafide need of suit premises for the medical profession of her husband and son for which the respondent had no other alternate suitable accommodation. The trial court found that appellant No. 1 had illegally sublet the suit premises to appellant No. 2. The first appellate court by judgment dated 29th March 2005 has affirmed the decree of eviction passed by the trial court on both the grounds i.e. the ground of bonafide need as well as the ground of subletting.