UNISYSTEM PVT. LTD. Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated September 6, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No.37 of 2012.

(2.) The opposite party filed a suit for eviction, being Title Suit No.37 of 2012. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed a written statement along with a counter claim.

(3.) The plaint case was that the defendant/petitioner had been inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of one factory shed bearing No. 1A, having a covered area of more or less 5000 sq. ft. at holding 220A, Naskar Para Road, Ghusuri, Police Station, Malipachghara, District Howrah, at a monthly rental of Rs.5,788.12p, which was lastly enhanced to Rs.6,700.49p. The defendant/petitioner defaulted in payment of the rent since April 1998. The defendant/petitioner caused damage to the property by making additions and alterations, which were not permissible as per the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation, as the plaintiff did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation within 10 Kms from the suit property. The plaintiff was a businessman and he had been running a business of manufacturing, export, import, processing, packaging and re-packaging etc. By virtue of a registered deed of sale dated March 22, 1983, the plaintiff became the owner and landlord of the suit premises. The plaintiff was also a stockist and commission agent who was trading in all kinds of food products, organic products, processed product, packed food, frozen foods etc. The products were being sold under the name and style of YP Foods Private Limited. YP Foods Private Limited was a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and the place of business was at M.J. Industrial Park, J.L. No.27, Mouza Satghoria, P.O. Bikihakola, P.S. Panchla, Howrah ' 711302. That business of the plaintiff flourished and it was impossible for the plaintiff to run the business from M.J. Industrial Park. That the suit premises was reasonably required to accommodate the expanded business. As the suit premises was a factory shed and situated within Howrah town, the same would be convenient for such purpose. The defendant/petitioner had alternative accommodation. The defendant should not remain in the suit property and be in possession thereof. That tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit which was sent by registered post to the defendant on December 19, 2011. The defendant/petitioner was asked to vacate the suit property with the expiry of January, 2012.