RANCHOD B DAS Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for eviction of his tenant-respondent, from the suit premises, vide judgment and decree dated 16. 8. 1994. THE appellate court reversed the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5. 4. 1997. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 5. 4. 1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, who was in service in the year 1974, let out one of his shop, out of his three shops, situated in his house to the defendant- deceased Kanhaiya Lal on 2. 10. 1974 on rent of Rs. 110/- per month excluding the charges for the electricity, water and house-tax. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant- tenant on 28. 10. 1977. The plaintiff in his plaint stated that the suit shop was let out to the defendant for commercial purposes but instead of doing the business in his own name, the defendant obtained licence from competent authority for running the shop in the name of his wife and started business in the shop in the name of his wife without the permission of the plaintiff. Not only this but in violation to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, the defendant-tenant started residing in the shop from 1. 6. 1976 with his wife and children. The defendant also damaged the property causing loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submitted that plaintiff's son Chandra Shekhar is doing his business in the name of M/s Kamdhenu Aahar Industries in Shop No. 1 of the plaintiff and he wanted to have show-room for his business, therefore, the plaintiff is in need of the shop No. 3, which was let out to the defendant. The plaintiff also sought decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant as he did not pay the rent of more than six months.

(3.) THE plaintiff further amended his plaint with the leave of the court by order dated 24. 2. 1987 and added a new ground for seeking eviction. New ground is that the defendant removed the partition wall and materially altered the premises. THE amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff on 5. 3. 1987. THE defendant submitted reply to the grounds by filing supplementary written statement on 21. 8. 1987.