LAXMI DEVI SHARMA Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant arises out of the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 13/1.994 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 21.9.1995 in Civil Suit No. 640/1980, whereby the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the appellant.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed a suit claiming arrears of rent and ejectment against the appellant. It was contended in the plaint that a shop situated in Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, was let out to the appellant with effect from 1.1.1972 at the monthly rent of Rs. 135.00. Subsequently a rent note was also executed between the parties on 22.2.197-2.1t was contended in the plaint, inter alia, that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent and house-tax with effect from 1.11.1976. It was further contended that the respondent has specialised in the art of photography and intends to set up the said business in the disputed shop premises which is r squired for his personal bonafide need. It was further contended that the appellant h;id sub-let the shop to some third party without obtaining the consent of respondent- landlord and as such guilty of parting with the possession of the premises. The respondent had consequently prayed for a decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises; for arrears of rent, house-tax and other costs of the suit amounting to Rs. 1735.82 p. In the written statement filed by the appellant, the contentions of the respondent were hotly contested on the grounds, inter- alia, that the appellant is a tenant of the disputed shop with effect from 1.9.1969 which was initially taken on rent from one Gulab Chand, who is father of respondent and a rent note was also executed in his favour. It was further contended that the appellant was always ready and willing to make payment of the rent and he had offered the rent to the respondent. Money-order was also sent but the same was refused by the respondent and thus the appellant had not defaulted in payment of rent. As regards the plea of bona fide requirement of the landlord, the same was specifically denied by the appellant. The appellant had also denied the plea of subletting and it was submitted that the respondent, his father, brother and mother have got six shops in Jaipur and that the respondent is carrying on the business of photography alongwith his father and brother. It was also contended that comparative hard-ship of the appellant would be far greater than that of the respondent if she is evicted from the suit premises since she was having dealership of Bata and BSC in the Chandpol Bazar, which is a busy commercial centre of Jaipur.

(3.) The learned trial Court, after framing the issues, recorded evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff deserves to succeed in the suit and consequently a decree for eviction of the defendant-appellant was passed on the ground of sub- letting, personal bona fide necessity and denial of title, on 21.9.1995. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was taken up for hearing by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and the learned Appellate Court vide its concurring judgment dated 2.12.1995, confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.