RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAMLAL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.1995 passed by Smt. Renu Sharma, Second Additional District Judge, Morena, whereby the judgment and decree passed by Smt. Meena Singh, Additional Civil Judge Class I, Morena dated 8.11.94 has been confirmed.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in suit and recovery of Rs. 873.22 P. as means profits and future means profits at the rate of Rs. 125/ - per month under a rent note dated 1.2.1979. He alleged that he was the owner of the house situated at Subat -Road, Morena. The defendant was tenant in the ground floor in a portion of a shop consisting of a hall, one room and one bukhari at Rs. 125/ - per month under a rent note dated 1.2.70. The disputed accommodation has been shown in red in the plaint map. The tenancy commences from the 1st of each English Calendar month and ends with the last date of the month. The defendant paid rent upto June 1987 and the rent since 1.7.87 was due. The accommodation was required bona fide by the plaintiff for his adult son Vinod Kumar Garg for carrying on General Merchant business. There was no other suitable accommodation of his own in main -market (main road) Mandi Morena with him. His son was graduate and had no business of his own. In the ground floor, in the portion of the plaintiff's house to the North -West of the disputed shop, plaintiff had his Ashok Oil and Floor Mill and had a godown. By the side of this house his Bardana is kept. The defendant was doing his business in the name of Girraj Transport Morena, which he had removed and had given it to his brother Kishan Kumar Gupta and he himself had started business in the name of Nirankari Transport at Daresi No. 3, Agra -4. He did not carry on business for the last 7 or 8 years in the disputed shop in the name of Girraj Transport. Kishan Kumar was doing that business. There had been partition of the joint family of the defendant and as such the defendant was liable for ejectment under Section 12 (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act as well. When the defendant was asked to vacate the shop for the plaintiff's son, he asked to talk to Kishan Kumar, his brother. When he was approached he promised to vacate it by Diwali 86, but he did not vacate. A registered notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant as well as his brother Kishan Kumar to vacate the accommodation and the tenancy was terminated from 30.6.87, but to no effect.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed issues that arose from the pleadings of the parties, took the evidence and after considering the entire material on record, held that the need of the plaintiff was bona fide and on this basis, the suit was decreed. The claim of sub -tenancy was however negatived. The defendant preferred an appeal but the learned trial Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.