LAWS(RAJ)-1996-8-115

SOHANLAL Vs. SRIKISHAN

Decided On August 07, 1996
SOHANLAL Appellant
V/S
Srikishan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction from the suit premises against the defendant-appellant. The suit was in respect of a Hall which was being used for commercial purposes since last so many years. The plaintiff sought the ejectment of the defendant on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff stated that he and nine other members of his family are residing in a very small dwelling unit which consists of one room only. He had taken this dwelling unit on rent from his brother. According to the plaintiff, the suit Hall measures 30 x 22 sq. feet. The plaintiff further submitted the plan Ex. 3 and expressed that he wents to convert it into a residential unit by constructing toilet, Kitchen etc. and also making wooden partitions. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has got enough accommodation in his possession to serve his purpose. His father owned vast immoveable properties and it was also alleged that some of the properties were given to the plaintiff. It was very vehemently opposed that the above Hall can be converted into residential unit. There is no provision for discharge of rain water as also the water of bath room etc. Normally when the accommodation is commercial one, nobody would convert it into a residential unit.

(2.) The defendant has further pointed out that the situation of the Hall is very peculiar. It is in the midst of the market and in the vicinity all other first floor buildings are used for commercial purposes.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed the Issues. The parties led the evidence and on the basis of the evidence, the learned Munsif was of opinion that though the plaintiff produced the plan Ex. 3 but he could not explain how the above Hall could be converted into a residential unit. According to him, no provision can be made for discharge of rain and other water. Since in the vicinity, the first floor invariably is used for commercial purposes, the plaintiff is not likely to convert it into a residential unit. He, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.