DEV KUMAR ASATI Vs. PRASAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant/tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2016 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2015 confirming the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013 passed by Fourteenth Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.83- A/2013 granting decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of bonafide need of the non residential premises.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the defendant/appellant is a tenant of a shop @ Rs.1300/- per month situated in Plot No. 194 as per the boundaries specified in the map filed along with the suit on the basis of a rent agreement dated 15.8.1991. The original lessee of the said plot was Om Prakash Shrivastava, which has been received on transfer to the plaintiff. Thereafter the shops were constructed and the defendant/appellant is one of the tenant therein. On the date of filing of the suit i.e. 31.1.2011, the defendant was in arrears of rent. The plaintiff has pleaded that he requires the suit shop, to run a Photo Studio business wherein the defendant is the tenant and at present he is running the said business in a tenanted shop taken from his son, however, the suit shop is required bonafide. It was also pleaded that on account of non payment of the arrears of rent within due time and due to bonafide need of the shop, suit premises is required to which no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation of his own is available with the plaintiff in the township of Jabalpur.

(3.) The defendant filed the written statement inter alia contending that the suit shop is in between two tenanted shops given to one Sunil Sharma. Because the plaintiff wants to take more rent from the defendant comparing with Sunil Sharma, however, pleading the flimsy ground of bonafide need to start his business of Digital Colour Lab, this suit has been preferred. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is having other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation, therefore, also the need of the plaintiff is not bonafide, hence denied.