MOHAMMED HAROON Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the landlord aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Indore, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 151 of 1986 dated 6-12-1986, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 - Central Bank of India and reversed the judgment and decree of eviction passed against respondent No. 1 by the 5th Civil Judge Class I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 19-A of 1981 dated 15-3-1986.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the present appellant-plaintiffs, who are the heirs of one Mohd. Ishaque filed a suit before the court of the Civil Judge Class I, Indore against respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India for obtaining a decree of eviction and arrears of rent in respect of the premises situate on route No. 2 at Jawahar Marg. Indore constructed on plot Nos. 24 and 26. It is not in dispute that initially the building constructed on plot Nos. 24 and 26 was taken on rent by respondent No. 1, the Central Bank of India and the lessors were Mohd. Ishaque, his brother Sheikh Hasham and Haji Ismail (defendant No. 9), Mohd. Ishaque and Sheikh Hasham expired and Mohd. Ismail only survives.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court in short was that a building on route No. 2 Jawahar Marg was constructed on plot Nos. 24 and 26 and it is of ownership of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 9. The house numbers are 23, 23(1) and 23(2) according to municipal corporation record. The ground flour of the building including the basement and the mezzanine floor along with a hall on the eastern side of the first floor was given on rent by Mohd. Ishaque, Sheikh Hasham and Mohd. Ismail for non-residential purposes to respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India on a rent of Rs. 1450/- per month. The Bank had option to renew the aforesaid lease up to 1-12-1978. The lessors were not willing to extend the lease period any further. They, therefore, informed the Bank that they are not willing to extend the lease any further. It was further averred that as the plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 wanted to start their own business of hardware and steel furniture, they bona fide required the suit accommodation for their own use as they had no alternative accommodation in the city of Indore for that purpose. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 was informed in writing that they should hand over the suit premises to the plaintiffs but when they refused to do so, the suit was filed.