UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. ROOPARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent was decreed with costs.

(2.) THE respondent Roopa Ram filed a suit for ejectment in respect of the suit-property situate on High Court Road Near Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and fully described in para 1 of the plaint.

(3.) ACCORDING to the conditions of the written agreement dated 29-10-66, the property was to remain in the tenancy of the appellant-Bank for the period of 12 years with further option that the tenant shall be at liberty to retain the property in tenancy for further 10 years subject to the condition that the rate of rent shall be increased by 10%. However, the plaintiff was not knowing about the said extension clause and consequently, after the expiry of the first 12 years, he instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 2/79) for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Subsequently, when the plaintiff came to know about the extension clause, he got the said suit dismissed on 22-7-86 primarily on the ground of it being premature. However, even after the expiry of 22 years, when the plaintiff wanted the possession of the suit property back from the appellant-Bank, the appellant-Bank refused to deliver the possession. According to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff Roopa Ram traditionally was a 'Gold-smith' but on account of advancement of his age, he was no more competent to continue that job and consequently, decided to run a hotel in the suit premises because the situation of the and there were lot many hotels and restaurants, which were running successfully in the vicinity. Consequently, it was planned to starts hotel with the name of 'Hotel Ridhi- Sidhi'. According to the plaint allegations, the ground floor area was planned as a restaurant and on the first floor and the second floor, rooms for guests were planned and the plan with a map was submitted to the concerned department for sanction. According to the plaint allegation, Rs. 2-2.5 lacs were expected to be spent towards addition and alteration and the plaintiff had the required money with him. Further the plaintiff had an arrangement to introduce Nand Lal Soni (son of his brother) as his partner who had agreed to invest Rs. 3.5 lacs towards the working capital of the proposed hotel. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the premises were needed reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for the said hotel and the appellant-Bank was not going to suffer any difficulty in finding alternative premises for itself and so far as the question of comparative hardship was concerned, the plaintiff had a much better case than the appellants. It was submitted that a decree of partial eviction would not serve the purpose of the plaintiff as the entire premises were needed for the hotel business. Further it was submitted that the first floor of the premises was lying un-utilized since long and on this ground also, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction.