FIRM POONAM CHAND KESRIMAL KASAT Vs. GHISULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil original suit No. 375/ 95 by filing this revision petition under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure whereby the Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner. One of the grounds of ejectment is the reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the shop in question. With regard to this point, the plaintiff pleaded that he and his wife want to carry on the business of hosiery, handicraft and manihari. Where the suit situated is a market for the above business. Presently the plaintiff is carrying on the business of bamboos and bailies. It was also alleged that the wife of the plaintiff is well-versed in the business of handicraft. The plaintiff further stated that he has got no other shop in the above market. The wife of the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and he remarried.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner denied the existence of the alleged personal and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got many shops. The intention of the plaintiff is only to enhance the rent or to establish a market by including the suit shop so that he could fetch substantial rent. The suit was filed with an ulterior object. After recording the evidence of the parties, the case was fixed for final arguments. Then the petitioner filed this application on 13-10-1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is important to take a note of the statement made by the petitioner in the application. The petitioner has stated that on 6-10-1997, the plaintiff met the petitioner and told that in Gancha Bazar, there is a shop renting under the name and style "Hajarimal Udairam" in which the plaintiff and his son Deepak are partners, that the plaintiff has opened a new firm in Jan. 1992 and this firm is also situated in the said Gancha Bazar, that the plaintiff's second wife is partner in the above firm and that the plaintiff does not require the above shop for his personal necessity to carry on the proposed business but in order to establish a market by adding adjoining properties to the suit shop for the purpose of fetching handsome rent. The plaintiff even disclosed his Income Tax and Sales Tax No, also.