MOHAMMAD Vs. NEMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-tenant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 25A of 1979 dated 13-10-1983, in this civil second appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 plaintiff, the landlord of the non-residential suit premises, filed a suit on 4-9-1974 for eviction against the appellant-tenant and respondent No. 2, in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior. According to the plaint of the respondent-landlord, appellant-defendant No. 1 is the tenant of non-residential accommodation, house No. 100 in Ward No. 30 of Gwalior City, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The suit premises were given to defendant No. 1 for doing the business of laundry on 1-7-1967 and a contract (Ext. P. 1-C) was entered into by the Parties, according to which the defendant undertook that he shall neither sub-let the premises nor do the business of laundry in partnership. According to the plaintiff, the appellant-defendant has contravened the terms of the said contract by entering into partnership business of dry cleaning with one Malhotra, new garment business with one Ramlal, and then he started dry-cleaning business with one S. K. Chawla. Defendant No. 1 is, thus, not only guilty of sub-letting the premises, inconsistent user, but also is doing different businesses in it. The plaintiff further averred that he bona fide requires the said accommodation for starting his own business of flour-mill and he has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city of Gwalior.

(3.) The appellant-defendant No. 1 and respondent-defendant No. 2 filed separate written statements. Appellant-defendant No. 1 denied the contents of the plaint and repudiated the allegations of sub-letting the premises to sub-tenants and also doing the business in partnership with others. According to appellant-defendant No. 1, respondent No. 2 is his business manager. He further repelled the contention of the landlord that he bona needs the suit premises for starting his own business of flour-mill. He, inter alia, contended that the landlord had two flour-mills in Mochi Oli area of the city of Gwalior and is doing profitable business. He alleged that the landlord insisted to increase the amount of rent and was demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month, but, by a compromise, he is at present charging Rs. 110/-per month. He further denied that the tenancy has been validly terminated and claimed that by an oral consent of the landlord he has carried out repair work of Rs. 800/- which has not been adjusted.