CHAMPA LAL Vs. SHRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by the defendant tenant, against the different judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below in two different suits, instituted by two different landlords, and decreeing both the suits for eviction, and also determining standard rent in favour of both the landlords.

(2.) IN my view, the totality of circumstances of both the cases is such, that I think it appropriate to decide both the appeals by this common judgment.

(3.) THE defendant contested both the suits, alleging that the landlord was not entitled to bifurcate on split the tenancy, by selling the premises in portions to two different persons, and unless the original landlord gives him notice, or the plaintiff proves the valid sale deed, the plaintiff does not become landlord. It was also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to bifurcate the rent, nor was the seller so entitled to fix the rent. It was also contended that the seller had asked the defendant to increase the rent, and that he wants to sale the shop also contended that the seller had asked the defendant to increase the rent, and that he wants to sale the shop also, because he wants to become an `ascetic', whereupon the defendant offered to purchase the premises on appropriate market price, and in the alternative also offered to increase the rent, but then the landlord did not respond, and had learnt, that he became `ascetic'. It was also alleged that rent had been paid by the defendant upto July, 1996, and thereafter nobody came to demand rent. However, notice was received from the plaintiff on 4. 4. 1997, which was replied. THE allegations of default and bonafide necessity were denied. It was denied that the husband is carrying on business in the rented shop, and rather the husband is carrying on business comfortably in the existing premises, and the suit shop is not at all suitable for the proposed business. It was also alleged, that the house at Singhpol is a well constructed house, the suit premises is in the market, which cannot be used for residential purposes. THEn, the pleadings of of comparative hardship etc. were taken.