SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. LEELADHAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of judgment dt. 21. 3. 2001 of ADJ No. 2 Kota in CRA No. 17/2000 affirming the decree dt. 21. 1. 99 of the Civil Judge (JD) South Kota in Civil Suit No. 763/92.

(2.) THE facts, shorn in details are that Leeladhar Agrawal Advocate (respondent No. 1) (plaintiff) instituted a suit for eviction of shop situated at Main Road Kota Junction on the grounds of (a) bonafide need, (b) sub tenancy and (c) public nuisance. THE suit shop was admittedly rented out at Rs. 500/- per month to the tenant appellant (Shakuntala Devi ). Except the tenancy and monthly rent, all plaint averments as to the aforesaid trioka grounds of eviction were denied by the tenant in her written statement. Nine issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings by the trial Court. To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself beside other witnesses namely; Mohanlal (PW2), Dalip Sharma (PW3), Om Singh (PW 4) and Pyara Singh (PW 5) and got seven documents exhibited including Rent Note, family settlement, IT return, notice, postal receipt, A. D. receipt, (Ex. 1a to Ex. 7), whereas defendant (tenant) examined herself so also Ramkumar (DW2), Jagdish Prasad (DW 3) and Devdutt (PW 4) and got only two documents (invitation card & photo) exhibited. THE trial Court decided issue No. 4 as to the sub tenancy against the landlord (plaintiff ). Issue Nos. 5,6, & 8 - burden of proof of which was on the defendant-were decided against the tenant as she failed to prove the same. Thus, on the basis of findings arrived at on the Issue Nos. 1,2,3,8 & 9 in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant tenant only on the grounds of bonafide need, comparative hardship, partial eviction and nuisance. Against which, the tenant preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court but the first appeal was also dismissed affirming the decree of eviction by the impugned judgment. Hence, this second appeal against the concurrent findings.

(3.) MR. Siddique for the appellant cited decisions in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitri Sopan Gujar (1), Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam Tiwari (2), M/s. K. C. Mathew & Sons vs. A. Sulalkha Beevi (3) and Nirmala vs. Hari Singh