RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. KASTURI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant Civil Second Appeal under section 100 CPC, the plaintiff-appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 7th February, 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Baran in Civil Appeal No. 25/1997 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25th May, 1996 passed by learned Judge (Jr. Div.) Baran in Civil Suit No. 70/1994 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial court has been affirmed.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of this second appeal in short are that appellant-plaintiff Rajendra Kumar filed a civil suit against the defendants for eviction alleging therein that he purchased the shop, description of which was given in the plaint, vide registered sale-deed dated 4th February, 1994. It was averred that the said shop was on rent with Gyarsi Lal since 1960. Gyarsi Lal expired on 19th April, 1992 and the defendants being the legal representatives of original tenant Gyarsi Lal continued to be the tenants in the shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 22.50 per month. It was also alleged that since the shop is required by the plaintiff for his personal and bona fide need for opening Dhaba as he was running his Dhaba in a rented premise for which Rs. 1200/- per month is being paid as rent. Latoor lal, the erstwhile owner of the shop, sent a registered notice to the defendants regarding sale of the shop to the plaintiff, which was duly received by the defendants. Thus, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff for eviction be decreed with cost.

(3.) The defendants-respondents resisted the suit by filling written statement. In the written statement they did not dispute the fact that Gyarsi Lal was a tenant in the disputed shop and regarding the death of Gyarsi Lal and also the fact that Latoor Lal informed them regarding sale of the disputed shop to the plaintiff. It was also stated that the entire family of the defendants depends upon the income from the shop and if the disputed shop is vacated, the entire family will be ruined. It was also pleaded that, since the plaintiff purchased this disputed shop on 04/02/1994 and had filed the present suit on 28/02/1994, therefore the suit is premature.