M.J.J. SHARMA Vs. CHOPARA TYRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 18/05/2010 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) in RCA No.38/2009 whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 08/08/2006 passed by VIIIth Civil Judge Class-I, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) in RCSA 135-A/2004, was set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and the owner of house No. 16/6, Chhoti Gwaltoli, Indore, where the disputed shop is located. Defendant No.1 is also a partnership firm and is a tenant of this shop. On 22/10/1985, the partner of Defendant No.1, Shammi Chopara, signed a registered rent-deed with the plaintiff. The agreed rent was 1,000 per month for the first three years and 1,150 per month thereafter, for a total period of five years. The agreement stated that the shop could not be sublet or transferred. Later, on 1/4/1991, defendant No.1 filed a case before the Rent Controlling Officer, Indore, for fixation of rent. The plaintiff's partner, Purushottam, appeared in Court and it was alleged that a settlement was made to fix the rent at 1,500 per month. Relying on this assurance, Purushottam did not appear further and an ex-parte order was passed fixing the rent at 259 per month. The plaintiff then filed several appeals and the matter was remanded multiple times. The last appeal, No.483/2000 is still pending for adjudication before this High Court.

(3.) The plaintiff stated that defendant No.1 had not paid rent since 16/3/1998, despite being served a legal notice through the plaintiff's counsel. The plaintiff also stated that in the month of October 1998, it came to know that defendant No.1 had sublet portions of the shop to defendants No.2 and No.3 without his permission. It was also alleged that defendant No.1 had built a concrete wall dividing the shop into two parts and had not removed these changes even after receiving notice. The plaintiff claimed that these actions violated the tenancy agreement. The plaintiff further stated that rent would be claimed later after the Court- fees were paid and that possession of the disputed shop should be handed back to the plaintiff.