GOVINDER KAUR Vs. HARDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appeals arising out of the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from the suit shops and the open land behind the two shops. Appeal No. 476 of 1973 has been filed by the tenant and Appeal No. 7 of 1974 has been filed by the plaintiff landlord.

(2.) The plaintiff Hardeo Instituted the suit with the allegations that the plaintiff was a co-sharer of the joint Hindu Family Firm Messrs Govindram Pannalal in the year 1953 there was a family arrangement and the suit premises fell to his share. At that time Sardar Attar Singh husband of defendant No. 1 Govinder Kaur, was the tenant in the suit premises and was carrying on business there. The suit premises were originally taken on rent by Deewan ,Singh, father-in-law of defendant No. 1, from the plaintiff's ancestors for business on a monthly rent of Rs. 47/-. The suit premises consists of shop No. 5 and shop No. 6 situated on Station Road in Bohra Building. The description of the suit premises has been stated in pica 2 of the plaint. In pars 3 of the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff instituted the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against Sardar Attar Singh and defendant No. 2 Gurubachan Singh on 11-12-1964, but on account of death of Sardar Attar Singh that suit abated on 3-5-1966. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 as heir continued to carry on business on the suit shops jointly with others and started giving rent to the plaintiff as tenant and for the first time on 3-10-1966 the defendant No. 1 paid rent to the plaintiff as tenant.

(3.) The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendants on the ground of personal reasonable and bonafide need, sub-letting and material alteration. As regards personal need, it was stated in para 4 (ka) that the plaintiff needs the suit premises for his own use and for the use of his family reasonably and bonafide. Then he specified that out of the two shops and shop is required for opening of the office of his son Gauri Shankar, who is an advocate The plaintiff does not have any proper accommodation for establishing his office. As regards, the second shop, it was stated by him that the second shop is required for carrying on the business of general merchandise by himself and his son Radha Krishan. It was averred that the plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction earlier and demanded pot session from Govinder Kaur after the death of Attar Singh, but the defendant No. 1 expressed her helplessness on account of the death of her husband and asked the plaintiff to wait for a year. Thereupon the plaintiff considering her circumstances agreed to wan for one year, but after one year when the plaintiff asked her to vacant the suit premises, reluctance was shown by her. It was also stated that the second shop is needed for the business to be carried on by him and his son Radha Krishan and that there is enough shop for the shop of merchandise on the Station Road.