RATAN LAL Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 5/8/2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh, Camp Kapasan in Civil Original Suit No.26/2014 (CIS No.815/2014) whereby the suit for eviction and arrears of rent as filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) The suit for eviction was preferred by the respondent - plaintiff with an averment that the shop in question was rented out to defendant Ratan Lal on rent @ Rs.6,000.00 per month. As he wanted to raise one more floor, he sought permission from the municipality for the same and therefore, wanted the premise to be vacated. Notice dtd. 4/10/2013 in terms of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act of 1882') for termination of tenancy was served on the defendant which was received by him on 14/10/2013. Vide the said notice, the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31/10/2013. But even after the said termination, the tenant did not vacate the premise and hence the suit for eviction was filed. It was also averred that the tenant had last paid the rent for the period from 1/4/2010 to 31/7/2010 (Rs.24,000.00 @ Rs.6,000.00 per month) only and hence a prayer for arrears of rent as well as mense profits was also made.

(3.) Written statement to the plaint was filed by the defendant wherein he averred that he was a tenant from last 40 years and the rent agreed upon between the parties was Rs.28,000.00 per annum and not Rs.6,000.00 per month as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 2014 whereby the term of tenancy was further extended for a period of 5 years and hence he could not be directed to be evicted prior to the year 2019. Regarding the arrears of rent, it was submitted that he had deposited an amount of Rs.28,000.00 qua the annual rent for the period from April, 2013 to March, 2014 and information of the same was even given to the plaintiff vide notice dtd. 7/5/2014. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff had no bonafide need of the shop in question as he was the owner of many other shops and residential premises.