UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHY Vs. SHANTA GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these matters have been heard analogously as the parties are almost the same and the matter of dispute also relates to the same suit premises.

(2.) THE respondent No. 3, Jagannath Singh of Second Appeal No. 3 of 1997 (R) filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1989 against the appellant Umesh Chandra Tripathy of the Second Appeal for eviction of the defendant from the premises detailed and described in Schedule A of the plaint on the ground of personal necessity under Section 14 read with Section 11(1) (c) of the B.B.C. Act, 1982. The plaintiff, Jagannath Singh's case in brief is that he became the owner of the suit premises by virtue of a deed of assignment executed by Smt. Binita Mathur on 13.10.1988 and also as per paper transaction of the leasehold right made on 3/5.12.1988 by Bokaro Steel Ltd., Bokaro Steel City in his name. Further case of the plaintiff is that Smt. Shanta Grover was the first assignee and she relinquished her right in favour of Smt. Binita Mathur and the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by said Smt. Shanta Grover at the rental of Rs. 500/ per month in the shop and the premises attached to the shop, which has been described fully in Schedule A of the plaint. The plaintiff is residing with his family on first floor of the premises and the shop of Madhu Dresses. He has got his entrance from the back portion of the suit premises through a Stair case. He served notice of attornment on the defendant, since the right of lease and interest was transferred in his favour by Smt. Binita Mathur by aforesaid deed of assignment. The original landlord. Smt. Shanta Grover also served notice on him about the transfer but inspite of notice, defendant did not pay rent to him from November, 1988 to February, 1989. Further case of the plaintiff is that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation for starting a trade business as he wants to divert his business of contract to trading due to old age and due to physical disability as he is suffering from Diabetese.

(3.) THE defendant had filed a petition before the House Rent Controller, Chas making Smt. Shanta Grover and the plaintiff as parties for direction to deposit rent in Treasury with all the averments made above. But the H.R.C. case filed by the defendant was rejected and he was asked to pay rent to the plaintiff, Jagannath Singh. The defendant then filed a suit being Title Suit No. 30 of 1989 for declaration that he is a monthly tenant under Shanta Grover and the plaintiff, Jagannath Singh who was the defendant No. 3 in that suit should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Umesh Chandra Tripathy in that suit. It was also contended that M/s. Madhu Dresses adjoining shop premises in the said building is a partnership firm and Mrs. Shanta Grover is a partner to that shop and as such according to Umesh Chandra Tripathy the plaintiff, even he has been assigned all rights from Shanta Grover, he can very well take possession of M/s. Madhu Dresses and start his business.