MANAS MOHANTY Vs. UTTARA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are defendant's appeals against a partly confirming and partly reversing judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and ancillary relief was decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal, the decree was confirmed but the cross appeal filed by the plaintiff for grant of damages was decreed by reversing the finding of the Trial Court.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff is the owner of a commercial complex consisting of shop rooms over the suit plot. She entered into an agreement with the defendant on 30/12/2012 for letting out one of the shop rooms on monthly rent basis. The defendant ran a retail medicine counter in the tenanted premises. On 27/10/2013, the plaintiff, citing absolute necessity served a legal notice on the defendant calling upon him to vacate the shop room within sixty days in terms of the agreement. The defendant was given liberty to collect the security deposit and unutilized cheques while delivering vacant possession of the tenanted premises. It was specifically indicated that in case of failure to comply with the notice by the defendant, he shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs.500.00 for each day of unauthorized occupation i.e., from 1/1/2014 till delivery of actual physical possession. The defendant received notice and replied on 11/12/2013 that the tenancy continues till 29/12/2017 and that the termination of the tenancy within a short period hardly after one year from its commencement is likely to affect his goodwill in the market and that he would not be in a position to arrange an alternative accommodation. The defendant thus, refused to comply with the terms of the notice. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement admitting the tenancy, the notice dtd. 27/10/2013 and his reply dtd. 11/12/2013. He questioned the legality of the notice during subsistence of the tenancy. He, further pleaded that he was running a medicine shop by investing Rs.50,00,000.00 and therefore, suddenly asking him to vacate the suit premises was highly impractical. It was also stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any damages. He also took the plea of a previous suit and negotiations between him and the plaintiff and of his offer to enhance the monthly rent from Rs.2200.00 to Rs.2500.00from June 2008, which was accepted by the plaintiff. He claims to have paid such rent. It was agreed between the parties that a fresh tenancy shall continue till the end of the year 2020.