PRAFULLANATH Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. Appellant defendant, who admittedly is a tenant of respondent -plaintiff in respect of shop No.2 situated at Nakuda Marg, Ratlam, under rent note dated 01.05.1986, (Ex.P/1), having lost before the Courts below has come up before this Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. (hereinafter for short 'the Code').

(2.) The eviction suit regarding the tenanted premises was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in December 2005, precisely on the ground that the appellant - defendant has been irregular in payment of rent and that he has not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.05.2005. It was further averred that the eastern wall of the shop, adjoining shop No.3 tenanted to the brother of the appellant, has been demolished by appellant -defendant, thus causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises. It was also averred that the tenanted premises have been sub -let by the appellant to his brother Arvindnath, tenant of shop No.3.

(3.) The appellant -defendant, in his written statement, denied that he has been irregular in payment of rent or that he has demolished the eastern wall of the tenant premises or that he has sub -let the tenanted premises to Arvindnath. The appellant - defendant averred that he has regularly paid the rent and that on refusal of the respondent -plaintiff to accept the rent, the same was deposited with the Rent Controlling Authority; that the eastern wall of the rented shop was removed by the respondent/plaintiff himself when it was let out in May, 1986. That as the appellant is a handicapped person, his business, with his consent, is being run in the tenanted premises by his brother Arvindnath.