NISSAR MOHAMMED Vs. UGAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil second appel preferred by appellant-defendant Nissar Mohammed is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 29.8.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhalwara in Civil Regular Appeal No. 11/2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the appeal-defendant against the judgment and decree dt. 12.5.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura in Civil Suit No. 38/2005 (25/1996), whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed against the appellant-defendant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of shop and for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-appellant. It was averred in the suit that the shop in question is rented to the defendant at rate of Rs.450.00 per month orally and after 01.09.1993, the defendant did not pay due arrears of rent. Thus, he has committed default in payment of rent. It was further alleged that plaintiff has retired from the government service on 31.08.1995 and now, he is jobless, therefore, he is having bona fide need of the shop in question to start business of general store. It has been further averred that a notice was sent to the defendant on 12.9.1995, but he did not hand-over the vacant possession of the shop in question nor pay due arrears of rent. The plaintiff prayed that the suit may be decreed against the defendant.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement and accepted the averments with regard to the tenancy and description of the shop, but other averments of the plaintiff were denied. It was averred in the written statement that the rent shop in question if Rs.175.00 per month including water and electricity charges and he took the shop in question two and half year before and is regularly paying the monthly rent. It was also averred that the defendant has filed a suit for temporary injunction against the plaintiff on 22.2.1996, in which, interim order for maintaining status quo has been passed and as a counter blast, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Further, it was averred that plaintiff has no bona fide need of the ship in question as he is having two other shops. Lastly, it was submitted that defendant has not committed any default in payment of rent and if the plaintiff succeed to vacant the shop in question, then he will great hardship comparison to the plaintiff. It was therefore, prayed that suit may be dismissed.