S.K. GUPTA Vs. CHELARAM AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 26.4.2003, passed by III ADJ, Satna in C.A. No. 86- A/02, affirming the judgment-decree dated 20.2.2002, passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Satna in C.S. No. 48-A/99, defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 100 CPC.

(2.) C .S. No. 48-A/99 (2-A/92) for eviction of tenant defendant-appellant was instituted on the ground that the suit house was let out to the defendant-appellant for residential-non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- p.m. Landlord plaintiff-respondent Chelaram bona fide required the suit house for establishing a shop of his major son Omprakash and there is no other alternative suitable accommodation in the city at Satna. The suit has been resisted on the ground that defendant-appellant S.K. Gupta is not the tenant of the plaintiff - respondent. The suit house was let out to the partnership firm of Harivilas Prabhudayal of which S.K. Gupta is one of the partner. The suit house is not bona fide required by the landlord plaintiff-respondent Chelaram for residential-non-residential use of his major son Omprakash.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the tenancy was oral. Referring to rent receipts exhibit D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, it has been contended that the rent of the suit house was paid by the firm Harivilas Prabhudayal agency. The documents cannot be read to the effect that tenancy was created in the name of M/s Harivilas Prabhudayal Agency. These receipts exhibit D-l to D-5 are to the effect that from the tenant running the shop in the name of Harivilas Prabhudayal Agency, the rent has been received. PW 1 Chelaram had stated that the suit house was let out to the defendant-appellant PW 1 S.K. Gupta. DW 1 - S.K. Gupta himself has stated that firm Harivilas Prabhudayal was functioning at Allahabad of whose he was a partner. He obtained the suit house from PW 1 - Chelaram to commence business at Satna also. The business of firm Harivilas Prabhudayal accordingly is being carried out by him in the suit house. Apart from this, there is no evidence on record to suggest that tenancy was created in favour of firm Harivilas Prabhudayal. No documentary evidence has been produced by the defendant-appellant DW 1 S.K. Gupta to substantiate his contention that the firm was inducted into the tenancy. The Courts below on consideration held that DW 1 S.K. Gupta himself was inducted into the tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- p.m. and he commenced his shop in the name of Harivilas Prabhudayal. This would not mean that the firm concerned was inducted into the tenancy.