RAJ KUMAR Vs. SMT. SHANTA DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant -defendant being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 5.7.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 3/2006, whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant -defendant and affirmed the judgment & decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Class No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No. 427/1992 whereby the trial court decreed the suit of the respondents -plaintiffs. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff Smt. Shanta Devi filed a suit for eviction against the appellant and respondent -Tek Chand before the court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara, which was later on transferred to the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) First Class No. 1, Bhilwara. It was averred in the suit that three shops, details whereof were mentioned in para 1 of the plaint are situated at Bhopalganj, Bhilwara in Rajiv Gandhi Market. The shops were given on rent to Tek Chand at a sum of Rs. 201/ - per month w.e.f. 1.9.1979. It was claimed that the tenant defaulted in making payment and therefore, a decree of eviction be passed. Other grounds including that of non -user, personal & bonafide necessity etc. were also taken. It was also claimed in the suit that the tenant has rented out the middle shop to the present appellant -Raj Kumar without any authority and has created sub -tenancy.

(2.) THE respondent -defendant No. 1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The appellant -defendant No. 2 also contested the suit and filed separate written statement, wherein it was stated that he is not sub -tenant of defendant No. 1 - Tek Chand nor the shop in which he is doing his business belongs to Smt. Shanta Devi. It was also averred by the appellant -defendant that he is carrying his business in the shop in question since 1977 onwards, initially along with his grandfather and thereafter, on his own and further that the shop belongs to him.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues including relief and recorded the evidence of both the parties. The plaintiff examined P.W.1 Bal Kishan, PW -2 Bhanwar Lal and PW -3 Om Prakash and in rebuttal, the defendants examined D.W.1 Raj Kumar, DW -2 Kanhaiya Lal and DW -3 Rameshwar Lal.