MOHAN LAL Vs. PARVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant- tenant against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner dated 31.7.1996 by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated 7.8.1993 decreeing the suit for eviction and damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 60/- per month.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may by summarised thus :- Plaintiff-respondents have a shop in Bikaner city at Dauji Road measuring 4 x 6. This shop was let out to Mohanlal @ Rs. 60/- per month on rent. Tenant stopped paying rent from 1.6.1984 and became defaulter. He also damaged the property and also refused to admit the respondents as landlords. The suit was originally filed by Champalal and Sanjay Kumar. The shop was required for personal use and occupation and a suit was filed for recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation. During the pendency of the suit Champalal expired and his legal representatives who are respondents before this Court were brought on record. The suit was amended on 27.11.1989 and a ground of sub-letting was added and another ground was also added that the appellant was having a Pan Shop at Station Road, he did not require it. It was pleaded that shop was being run in the name of New Bhati Watch Company by the sub-tenant. The defendant No. 1 New Bhati Watch Company through Kalu Bhati alias Manohar Bhati was also added as a party in the suit. Mohanlal defendant admitted tenancy and pleaded that Champalal was an old man and did not know as to how to do the business and that Sanjay Kumar was a Government servant who could not have done any business in the demised premises. It was also pleaded that the rent was paid and the tenant was not a defaulter and the landlords did not require the shop bona fide for their personal use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the suit was filed with an ulterior motive of raising the rent. It was also pleaded that the shop was not sub-letted, nor its possession was parted with and that the tenant was not carrying the business of Pan at Station Road.

(3.) MR . K.C. Samdariya put his appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs- respondents. He has opposed the admission of the second appeal.