KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VINITA RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2018 passed by District Judge, Shivpuri, in Civil Appeal No.69A/2017 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Court of First Civil Judge Class-1, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 2500023A/2016, whereby the suit of plaintiff/respondent has been decreed.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the suit was filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court for seeking eviction and recovery of rent and for grant of injunction against the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff is owner of the house bearing Ward No.8 situated at Arya Samaj Road, Shivpuri. Its description has been mentioned in the plaint para 1. This property is in question. It is further pleaded that the defendant is tenant in the premises. The suit property was purchased by plaintiff from Vishnu Kumar Mangal and other through registered sale deed dated 14.3.2011. Registered notice was sent to the defendant on 11.12.2012 whereby it was informed that the tenant premises has been purchased by the plaintiff. After receiving aforesaid notice, the defendant has not paid rent to the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the rent amount from 14.3.2011 to 28.2.2016, total amount Rs.30400/-, is to be paid by the defendant but till today the defendant has not paid the rent to the plaintiff despite receiving legal notice, still no reply has been sent by the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is residing in joint family, therefore, dispute keeps arise in the joint family between them, hence the property in question is needed for residence of the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff has requested the defendant to deliver the possession but it is not complied with, therefore, the plaintiff gave termination notice on 13.1.2016 and instituted the suit for eviction and recovery of the rent.

(3.) The defendant No.1 pleaded that the suit was misconceived and there was no cause of action for eviction. Further stand of the defendant was that there is no objection in relation to ownership of the plaintiff but it is denied that the defendant is tenant. The rent per month is Rs.500/-. Previously ex-landlord had instituted a suit against the father of defendant Laxminarayan Sharma, in which Second Appeal bearing No. 288/1974 was decided in favour of his father. The defendant is continuously depositing the rent in the Court and till the month of December 2016 the rent has been deposited in the Court. It is also pleaded that there is no need of suit property to the plaintiff as he is having large property in shape of a house at Nichla Bazar, Shivpuri which is sufficient for residence of his family, hence requested to dismiss the complaint.