PRAKASH CHAND Vs. BASANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission as well as on application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC (I.A.No. 19281/09) and application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC (I.A.No. 19282/09).

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/tenant against the decree for eviction and arrears of rent against him passed by the Courts below in concurrent manner.

(3.) Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs have various shops and have no bona fide in seeking eviction. This apart, it is contended that the suit shop is in dilapidated condition not capable of allowing the proposed business in it. To buttress this submission, learned counsel drew attention of this Court to paragraphs 9 of chief-examination of the plaintiff (P W1), wherein the plaintiff has stated that he has applied for reconstruction vide Ex.P/10. On perusal, it is found that ExP/10, is an application for permission to construct. Since no map is annexed to Ex.P/10, nothing in specific maybe inferred from it. More so, the plaintiff has sought eviction vide para 7 of the plaint on the ground that there are two shops on the ground floor, one belonging to defendant and another belonging to another tenant namely Kailashchand. On the upper floor, there is residence of plaintiff, therefore, he can conveniently run the business in the shops sitauted on the ground floor. Thus, both the aforesaid tenanted shops are described as suitable for the purpose of business of the plaintiff.