ACHALDAS HEMRAJ Vs. CHEETARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil First Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendant -appellant against the judgment & decree dated 12/03/2014 passed by the Court of Additional and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur whereby, the suit for eviction has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff -respondent and counter claim of the defendant -appellant has also been dismissed.

(2.) THE short facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and fixation of standard rent on the ground that he is owner of Plot No. D -1 in Chandpole Anaj Mandi on which two floors have been constructed and in ground floor, there are two shops, one shop is West facing and another shop just behind it is North facing. Both the shops have been rented to the defendant -appellant In February 1979 on the rent of Rs. 621/ - per month. Apart from the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting, plaintiff has pleaded the bonafide and personal necessity of his sons Kamal, Paras and Vinod. It has been stated that plaintiff -respondent has five sons. Vinod is physically challenged. Vinod, Kamal and Paras all the three want to start transport business in the disputed shops. Kamal and Paras are working in the name of Shivam Golden Transport Company on the chabutra of the suit premises but heavy goods could not be booked and could not be taken on upper floor of the aforesaid suit premises. Vinod is physically handicapped. He want to open STD/PCO in the shop and he would also help his brothers in the transport business by carrying table work and plaintiff has no other premises except these two shops to run the business of his sons. Two other brothers are running a Kirana shop at village Bichi. It has been further stated that the premises can easily fetch a rent of Rs. 12,000/ - per month. Contention of the defendant -appellant was that Kamal and Paras are working in the name of Shivam Golden Transport Company at Jalupura. Vinod is physically handicapped. He could not do any work. Few months back, plaintiffs have opened office of M/s. Padmavati Broker Agency at the mezzanine floor of the building. Vinod lives in village and he is doing his business of mobile phone in Pratap Nagar hence, he has no necessity for the premises. Hardship will be caused to the defendant -appellant if he has to vacate the rented premises and partial eviction is possible in the matter and if one shop be got vacated, the need of the plaintiff would be satisfied. Court below has decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity. The issue of comparative hardship and partial eviction have also been decided in favour of the plaintiff -respondent and rent has been fixed at Rs. 4,000/ - per month. Counter claim has also been submitted by the defendant -appellant that electricity meter installed in the premises is in possession of the defendant -appellant and plaintiff -respondent has to install a sub -meter at upper floor and he has to pay the electricity charges, for the electricity he has consumed but he has not paid any money. Hence, the counter claim has been submitted, which has been rejected by the court below.

(3.) CONTENTION of the appellant is that the court below has not considered the rival contentions correctly. Kamal and Paras are working in Jalupura and they have also started business in the name of M/s. Padmavati Broker Agency at the mezzanine floor of the same building. Vinod is also working at Pratap Nagar in the name of Neha Telecom hence, there is no bonafide need of any of the sons of the plaintiff. Apart from it, partial eviction from one shop would be sufficient to fulfill the need if any. It has also been submitted that initially the rent was much less and fixing interim rent @ Rs. 4000/ - per month is on much higher side. Appellant is entitled for electricity consumption for Rs. 6142/ - and sub meter has to be installed in the upper floor. Per contra, the contention of the plaintiff -respondent is that he has proved reasonable and bonafide necessity of his sons. Kamal and Paras were earlier working in Jalupura but premise has been got vacated by the landlord. They have also started business in the name of M/s. Padmavati Broker Agency in the same building but it has been closed and now they have no premises for his business of Shivam Golden Transport Company and Vinod has also started his mobile business in Pratap Nagar for the time being. Partial eviction would not fulfill his needs as three persons are in need of the premises and the shops are needed for storing and booking of the goods and also for running a STD/PCO shop. Under the new Rent Control Act, an application for fixation of standard rent has been submitted and rent of Rs. 5520/ - per month has been fixed vide order dated 05/09/2013 hence, all objections as regards to the enhancement of rent are of no consequence. The plaintiff -respondent is not under obligation to pay any money for electricity charges and suit has rightly been decreed.