SUNIL ENTERPRISES Vs. MITHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 1-9-2012 passed by XIV Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/12, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31-3-2010 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2009. By the impugned judgment and decree passed by trial Court the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) In the aforesaid suit, plaintiff has inter alia contended that plaintiff is running a cloth business in the name and style of Sunil Enterprises in shop No. 4-A, situated at Narayan Das Cloth Market, Near Central Library, Jiwaji Chowk, Gwalior since 1-4-1978 and paying rent. As on date the rent was to the tune of Rs. 325/- per month. It is further pleaded that at the time of commencing tenancy, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to Landlady Smt. Mithila Devi in advance. Up to 31-3-1999, plaintiff has paid the rent to the tune of Rs. 15,600/-. It is alleged that after 31st March, 1999 no receipt was given in token of the rent as paid. As now the value of the shop has gone up, therefore, defendants are trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit shop, therefore, the instant suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 has filed written statement. It was contended that suit shop was given to one Nareshchandra, who had started the business under the name and style of M/s. Sunil Enterprises, a proprietorship firm. However, without notice, knowledge and consent of defendants, said Nareshchandra handed over the possession of the suit shop to Pratapchandra Jethwani, the plaintiff, as a subtenant, contrary to the terms and conditions of tenancy. It is denied that plaintiff has ever paid rent to the defendants. Rent has been paid only by Nareshchandra till the time he was in occupation of the suit shop. It is denied that plaintiff is a tenant of defendants and any attempt has been made by the defendant to forcible dispossession of the plaintiff. In fact it is contended that as a matter of fact defendants have filed a suit vide Civil Suit No. 67-A/04 pending before the Court of 8th Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior, for eviction of Nareshchandra or the plaintiff and therefore, there is no reason for defendants to seek forcible dispossession of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. With the aforesaid pleadings, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.