ONKAR Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed against him by both the courts -below. The respondent -plaintiff filed the present suit in the year 1980 for eviction of the appellant defendant from the suit premises, which is admittedly a car garrage constructed within, the residential house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's case was that when he had constructed the house he did not have sufficient means to own a car therefore initially he let out garrage to the defendant, who is doing laundry business therein. Now that the plaintiff has the mean to acquire the car, he therefore requires the suit premises for parking of his car.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that it is not the defendant, but his son Dinesh Kumar it the tenant. He also denied that any need exists for the use of premises for car parking by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plea of the defendant that it is not Onkar Lal but his son Dinesh Kumar is the real tenant was not accepted and defendant was held to be tenant in the suit premises. Plaintiff's need for occupying the suit premises was held to be reasonable and bonafide. The question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur on 24.4.1992.