CHHOGALAL Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by Chhogalal defendant-tenant against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Rajsamand dated May 30, 1983 reversing the decree of Munsiff Nathdwara dated November 22, 1976 of dismissal of plaintiff-landlord's suit for ejectment of the tenant from a shop with a Medi over it and decreeing the suit of Bhanwarlal plaintiff-landlord for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the said premises.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the defendant had taken on rent a shop along with a Medi over it situated near Mathura Darwaja in the town of Nathdwara from the respondent on April 11, 1966 at a monthly rent of Rs.-21/ -. IT is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff carries on business in Kirana in Sarafa Bazar Nathdwara in a rented shop. The shop in which the plaintiff carries on business belongs to Temple Board Nathdwara and it is on rent with the plaintiff-respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 23/ -. According to the averments in the plaint; the plaintiff-respondent is a licensed food-grain dealer. According to him, when he receives food grain from out side through Railway or through trucks, he does not have sufficient accommodation (godown or shop) to store such food grains. His rented shop in Sarafa Bazar, Nathdwara is insufficient for the purpose. He cannot keep the food grains received by him in the shop in Sarafa Bazar and also carry on his food grains business in that shop. On account of the scarcity of the accommodation he has to keep the food-grains on the public road after taking licence from the Municipality and has also taken on rent a Kotha for storing food grain on rent from. Rameshchandra Parakh. He, therefore, needed the suit premises which are on rent with the defendant-appellant for storing food grains and Kirana articles and for carrying on his trade in it. Apart from that the demised premises are said to be in dilapidated condition and he needs these premises to make improvement in the premises. On these grounds, the respondent sued the appellant for his ejectment from the demised premises.

(3.) IT is necessary to briefly narrate the reasonings given by the courts below in arriving at different findings on issue No. 1 relating to reasonable and bona fide need of the demised premises. So far as Munsif Nathdwara is concerned, he held that the plaintiff land-lord received 2 or 3 trucks of food grain in a month. Each truck brought 90 or 100 bags in it. He stated that even according to the plaintiff, the goods received through trucks can be kept in the shop in Sarafa Bazar Nathdwara. IT was not the case that these 2 or 3 trucks arrived simultaneously. Munsiff referred to his own site inspection and found that 80 or 90 bags of grain were stored in the shop in Sarafa Bazar. There was also a Bukhari measuring 8'3"x 7'6" in which some more bags were lying and there was place for sitting and trading. According to him, the shop at Sarafa Bazar could accommodate the goods received in one truck or 1-1/2 times number of bags than the bags brought in the single truck. The grain bags received were also sold and the sale was of 10 to 12 bags per day. The grain bags are received in an instalment of 60 to 80 bags with interval of 10 to 15 days. The plaintiff was a retail licensee in food grain and not a wholesale licensee and as such he did not need more accommodation for storing the food grain bags. The Munsif also observed that when earlier Civil First Appeal No. 146 of 1975 at the instance of the tenant was pending before the Additional District Judge Udaipur, another shop belonging to the plaintiff and which is also situated near Mathura Darwaja opposite to the suit shop and which had been let out by the plaintiff to Gegraj fell vacant. The plaintiff instead of utilising that shop belonging to him for his aforesaid trade purpose, re-let the shop to another tenant. If indeed, it was held, the plaintiff needed additional accommodation for his trade purpose he would not have re-let his another shop which had fallen vacant during the pendency of the aforesaid first appeal. According to the plaintiff, he needed additional accommodation for storing his food grain and he did not want to shift his grain trading shop from Sarafa Bazar Nathdwara. IT was also observed that the plaintiff was retail licensee and he has not established that his trade had flourished any more. Compare to the plaintiff's trade, the defendant tenant was a wholesale grain dealer and the trade of the defendant in food-grain is more flourishing than that of plaintiff. On the basis of these reasonings, the Munsif decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff.