MOHSIN KHAN Vs. J M GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, (the plaintiff) filed suit for declaration and injunction alleging that he took Shop No.426, Indira Bazar, Jaipur on rent 16 years ago from the respondent (the defendant) on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- which was increased from time to time and the current rent is Rs.500/- per month. The defendant wants to increase the rent to Rs.1000/- per month. On 13.05.2001 he threatened the appellant that he should vacate the shop peacefully or else his articles will be thrown out of the shop. No rent deed was executed and the defendant did not give any receipt of rent. The plaintiff is an illiterate person and has a tailoring business in the shop. The defendant has also obtained his signatures on some blank papers and he is afraid that he may prepare some forged documents. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of declaration that he is the tenant of the defendant in Shop No.46 and the defendant may be restrained by permanent injunction from getting him to vacate the shop without following due process of law.

(2.) The defendant denied the tenancy in his written statement and submitted that he gave the aforesaid shop for use to his daughter, Anjula Gandhi, in 1987 who got furniture, counter, showcase and fittings fixed and got six sewing machines installed in it. She was carrying on business in the name of Stylax Tailors. Later on, due to shortage of time, she was unable to look after the business and she entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 01.09.1989 for giving him the use of the shop upto 31.08.1991, and in consideration of the said permission, the plaintiff was to pay her Rs.1000/- per month. After the expiry of the aforesaid licence period, the plaintiff was not entitled to use the shop and other material and the keys of the shop were to be returned to her. The aforesaid period of licence could have been extended by mutual consent of the plaintiff and Anjula Gandhi. On the request of the plaintiff, the said period was extended and the defendant paid Rs.1000/- per month upto 31.05.2000. As Anjula Gandhi was to go to United States, she transferred her rights of the aforesaid business to the defendant and an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 13.06.2000 under which the shop along with other material was to be used by the plaintiff from 01.06.2000 to 31.05.2001 and he was to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the defendant. The said period could have been extended by mutual consent of the parties, otherwise the goods and possession of the shop was to be delivered by plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff was also to give the keys of the shop to the defendant. It was also agreed between the parties that if disputes and differences arose between them, they were to be adjudicated by an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said period of license expired on 31.05.2001 and the plaintiff did not hand over the shop along with other material to the defendant. The plaintiff paid Rs.1500/- per month only upto 31.10.2000 and has not paid the sum for the remaining period. The allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint that the shop was given on rent of Rs.250/- to him which was subsequently increased to Rs.500/- and the defendant further wants to increase the rent to Rs.1000/- are wrong and were denied. The defendant did not go to the shop on 13.05.2001, did not threaten the plaintiff, and has not obtained his signatures on blank papers. The defendant also raised counter claim for the balance amount of licence fee amounting to Rs.10,500/- and claimed possession of the shop along with material by paying court fee on it. The defendant also prayed that the plaintiff may be restrained from disturbing him in his possession and use of the shop.

(3.) The plaintiff submitted a reply of the counter claim denying that any agreement was executed between him and Anjula Gandhi on 01.09.1989. The plaintiff did not obtain the shop on license either from Anjula Gandhi or the defendant but has a tailoring business in the shop which he has taken from the defendant on rent. The defendant is not entitled to get Rs.10,500/- and the counter claim is liable to be dismissed.