SANT KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in civil Appeal No. 51-Aof 1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed in Civil suit No. 94-A of 1979, dated 11-3-1980. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 23-7-1999 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant filed a suit for eviction initially against the defendant Ashok Kumar. He pleaded that the defendant had taken the suit premises which was a hall on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- on 1-6-1975 and another land admeasuring 7 feet x 18 feet was rented out to the plaintiff on 10-4-1973 granted by the Municipal Council to the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -. The defendant had been using the aforesaid land also. Hereinafter called the suit accommodation. Plaintiff needed the suit accommodation for the business of match box and cigarette. Hence, there was a bona fide need to the plaintiff. The lease of the defendant was terminated by registered notice dated 5-4-1977 w. e. f. 30-4-1977. Subsequently vide amendment dated 29-6-1978 plaintiff amended the plaint and pleaded that the defendant No. 1 rented out the suit accommodation in favour of the defendant No. 2, who was also added as party. Hence there was subletting. Some amendments were subsequently incorporated in the plaint on 8-4-1983.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that there was no bona fide need to the plaintiff. He further pleaded that he did not such let the suit accommodation in favour of defendant No. 2. He further pleaded that defendant No. 2 was inducted as partner in the business of hotel. Hence defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 both had been doing business of hotel in the name of Neelkamal Restaurant as partners. The same facts have been pleaded by the defendant No. 2 also. He further pleaded that he was a partner in the business of hotel and he and defendant No. 1 both had been running hotel in the suit premises and the possession of the suit premises was with the defendant No. 1.