BANK OF BARODA Vs. NANDKISHORE KACHHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by defendant Bank of Baroda against the decree of the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City dated A 4/08/1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises detailed and described in para 3 read with para 1 of the plaint.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent Nand Kishore Kachhwaha instituted Civil Original Unit No. 264 of 1980 against the appellant Bank of Baroda with the averments that plaintiff's father Nar Singh Kachhwaha had constructed, during his life-time, a house property on Plot No. 8-32 bearing House No. 2J-45 located on Arvind Marg, Mirsa Ismail Road, Jaipur Nar Singh Kachhwaha in his life time partitioned this house property in the year 1974 between his six sons and wife as a result of which the southerneastern portion of the house, which is triangular in shape, came to the share of the plaintiff-respondent. Mr. K.C. Bakiwala, who was Regional Manager of Bank of Baroda, was a friend of Nar Singh Kachhwaha and he contacted with the plaintiff with a request that the Bank needed the portion of the house which had come to plaintiff's share for its use as godown and the Bank would pay rent at the rate of 94 paise per square foot in relation to the covered area. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal and consequently the defendant Bank took on rent four rooms, one store and a verandah out of the plaintiff's house on a monthly rent of Rs. 565.00 with effect from 1/07/1976. The defendant had agreed to vacate these premises after two years. However on 1/02/1977 the employees or the defendant bank occupied an adjoining verandah and bath-room which were not included in the demised premises and did not vacate the rented premises even after the expiry of the period of two years. On 11/08/1978 and again on 23/10/1978, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant Bank to vacate the verandah and the bath-room and to pay its additional rent at Rs. 75.00 per month. The defendant Bank vacated the Verandah and the bath-room on 31/10/1978 but it did not pay any rent to the plaintiff for the same.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that since the time there was partition of the house, he was residing in the portion of the house which had fallen to the share of his mother with her permission. However, she was requiring the plaintiff to shift the house portion which had been allotted to him and as such the plaintiff required the demised premises for the use and occupation of himself and his family. The plaintiff was carrying on the trade of supplying building material but since one year before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff is suffering from pain in his spinal cord and lower back. The plaintiff is, therefore, also under an attempt to start hotel business after making some additional constructions in the ground floor and first floor of the demised premises and for this purpose as well, the plaintiff was entitled to get the premises vacated from the defendant. Accordingly on 10/01/1980, the plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice requiring the latter to vacate the demised premises and also claimed additional rent of the Verandah and bathroom which had been occupied by the defendant's employees. When the plaintiff insisted upon the defendant to vacate the premises, the defendant put forward the proposal that in case the plaintiff further renewed the tenancy for a period of three years, the defendant would vacate the same on 1/07/1983. At that time the plaintiff pointed out to the defendant that as a matter of fact covered area of 800 Sq. ft. was in occupation of the defendant and rent of the same at 94 paise per foot came to Rs. 750.00 per month and not merely Rs. 565.00 per month which the defendant was paying. The defendant thereupon agreed to pay rent @ 750/- per month front 1/07/1960 to 30/06/1983. The plaintiff considered that litigation for getting the house vacated might itself take three years and, therefore, he agreed with the above proposal of the defendant. The plaintiff received a letter dated Jul 24/07/1980 in this regard from the defendant but it was not mentioned in that letter that the defendant would vacate the premises on 1/07/1983. On the other hand, the plaintiff was required to withdraw his claim for rent of the verandah and the bath-room and regarding damages in relation to the door.