SUNITA Vs. SMT. RAZIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The appellant/tenant has preferred this second appeal under section 100 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Multai in Civil Suit No.13-A/2007 and judgment dated 31.10.2015 passed by learned 1st ADJ, Multai passed in Civil Appeal No.5-A/2012 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord was allowed by learned trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to filing of this appeal in short, are that the defendant/tenant/appellant has obtained the suit premises on rent. The suit premises was being used by the appellant tenant for running a shop. It is admitted by the defendant/tenant that the suit premises was let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month, though the landlord/plaintiff/respondent claimed it to be Rs. 700/- per month. The plaintiff appellant claimed that there was nonpayment of rent despite several assurance. The defendant/tenant did not pay the rent. On 02.11.2005 the tenancy was closed. When the plaintiff asked to vacate the premises, it was not vacated nor the rent was paid. The written notice was served. The defendant on 01.02.2006 replied the notice and stated that the plaintiff wanted the tenanted premises to be vacated illegally. The plaintiff sought the premises on bona fide need and for default of payment of rent from 02.12.2004 till 01.06.2006.

(3.) The defendant/tenant denied all the averments and claimed that the plaintiff requested the husband of the defendant to invest some money for construction of the premises. He spent about Rs. 2 Lacs which was to he adjusted in rent . The plaintiff filed the suit on the false documents. The defendant is the tenant since 1997 and has been depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. However, the plaintiff never issued any receipt. In March, 2006, the plaintiff received Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant. There was no demand of any rent neither the plaintiff was having any right to rent, nor compensation, nor the plaintiff is entitled to vacate the house.