MOHANLAL MINTOOLAL Vs. HAKIMSINGH GOPALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 15 -A of 1977, preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 11 -A of 1972.

(2.) MADANLAL and Mohanlal are the sons of Mintoolal, who are plaintiffs. Defendants are sons of Gopalsingh. The facts of the case are house, bearing Municipal No. 30/55, situate in Patankar Bazar, Lashkar, is the property of joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs and the defendants are the tenants of the portion on the ground floor and two rooms on the top floor at Rs. 115 per month. It was rented out by Mintoolal. The defendants are carrying on their business in the lower portion of the house, while it is alleged that the two rooms on the top floor were used for keeping material of the hotel. The defendants have paid rent upto 27 -10 -1971, accepting the plaintiffs as the landlords. On 27 January 1971, it is alleged that there was a partition inter se the plaintiffs and his father. The tenancy starts from eight of every month. A notice was given on 19 -5 -1971 to the defendants terminating their tenancy. It was received by defendant No. 1 on 2 -6 -1971 and by defendant No. 2 on 29 -5 -1971. The tenancy was terminated from the midnight of 8 -7 -1971. The notice had an optional clause also. The rent due towards the defendants was from 28 -10 -1971 to 12 -12 -1971 - -Rs 170.50 and notice charge of Rs. 4.50, in all Rs. 175. This amount includes the amount of mesne profits also. The suit for eviction is filed on 16 -12 -1971. The ground for eviction shown is that the plaintiffs want the lower portion for carrying on the business of general merchandise and they want to stay in the two rooms that are on the top floor. There was an amendment in the plaint to the effect that the purpose of letting mainly was for nonresidential purpose. But, the two rooms on the top floor are used by the defendants for residence, so that they can have control over the business which is run in the lower portion.

(3.) THIS suit was dismissed on 2 -9 -1967 by the trial Judge.