UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. SUDESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellants- Union of India/Postal Department against the eviction decree dated 07.01.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District: Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.39/1996- Smt. Sudesh Sharma Wd/o of Sh. Mulakraj Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(2.) Stated in succinct, the factual matrix giving rise to this first appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking eviction of the defendants, Post Office of Postal Department, appellants herein, from the suit premises, which is a residential house, situated at House No.94-L Block, Mandi Area, Vijaynagar, District: Sriganganagar. The suit premises was let out to the defendant No.3 on 23.01.1987 initially for a period of five years and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.750/- per month. An agreement was also executed in the form of lease-deed on 12.10.1987, which was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sri Vijaynagar. As per plaintiff-landlady (respondent herein), the defendants failed to make payment of monthly rent from the year 1993 and so also, the plaintiff sought eviction on the ground of bonafide need as after retirement as a teacher she needed the suit premises for her own residence as she was residing in a Government quarter, which accommodation was required to be vacated after her retirement. The plaintiff-landlady served a notice eviction on 25.03.1994 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 31.03.1994. By the aforesaid notice, the plaintiff-landlady also contended that the monthly rent deserves to be increased to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel for the appellantsdefendants (Postal Department) urged that as far as the issue of default is concerned, the benefit of first default was given by the learned court below and thereafter the appellants-defendants (Union of India) regularly paying the mesne profit/rent @ Rs.750/- per month regularly to the landlady. On the issue of bonafide need, he submitted that the landlady, Smt. Sudesh Sharma, a teacher, retired from the Government services in the year 1992 was since living in Sriganganagar and not at Vijaynagar, where the suit premises is situated, and, therefore, the court below has wrongly held that she still needed the suit premises in which the appellant- Postal Department is running a post office in larger public interest. Consequently, the eviction decree deserves to be reversed. He also submitted that since the original intention of the plaintiff-landlady was to increase the rent and not the eviction for her bonafide need of suit premises, since in her notice, she has stated that either the rent may be increased from Rs.750/- to Rs.2,500/- or the premises may be vacated by the defendants-tenants.