CHOTALAL SHAW Vs. RAM GOLAM SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant is against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Baraset reversing the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment against the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff Ram Golam Shaw brought the suit against the defendant Ramdas Chotelal, a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises at a rental of Rs. 23 payable according to English Calendar month. The allegations made in the plaint are that he has been carrying on a cloth business at a rented house. Due to the business at the rented house, the plaintiff is suffering inconvenience and wastage of money in spite of his having a house of his own. Moreover, the suit premises is very much suitable for his business. His landlord is demanding excessive rent for the room where he is carrying on business He asked the defendant to vacate the premises but his request has been fruitless. The plaintiff, moreover, requires the suit premises for building and rebuilding as the house has become old and dilapidated. It has further been alleged that the defendant has been a defaulter in payment of rents from the month of October, 1970 to April, 1971. The plaintiff after service of notice of ejectment on the defendant filed the suit for eviction on the ground that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation and for building and rebuilding and also on the ground that the defendant has been in arrears of rent for seven months.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement stating that he has been wrongly described as Ramdas Chotelal Shaw, his name is Chotelal Shaw. The defendant has denied the allegation about nonpayment of rent and challenged the correctness of the allegations that the plaintiff requires the suit premises either for reasonable requirement for his own use and occupation or for the purpose of building and rebuilding.