KAILASH NARAIN Vs. SHAH SWAROOP NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5th August, 1995 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.43/1994 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge,Jaipur city No.7 has been upheld and the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and determination of standard rent against the defendant-appellant on 20.4.1983. It was, inter-alia, averred in the plaint that the suit property was given on rent @ Rs.175/- per month in November, 1964 and in this regard a rent-deed was also executed in the year 1968. The rent was increased to Rs.200/- per month excluding house tax and thereafter on 1.7.1975 again the rent was enhanced to Rs.225/- per month excluding house tax. In para 2 of the plaint it was averred that the plaintiff, his son and wife are the Directors of the firm M/s Anoop Enterprises Private Limited.

(3.) The company was incorporated in the year 1969. Initially, the company was indulged in film distribution work. After some time M/s Electric, Construction & Equipment Company Limited appointed M/s Anoop Enterprises Private Limited as its sole distributor and whole-sale distributor for Jaipur, Kota region. In the year 1975 Tisco Industries also appointed M/s Anoop Enterprises Private Limited as sole distributor for Rajasthan and the plaintiff company was also appointed sole distributor of electric goods by Sylvania company and before filing the suit the company of the plaintiff also started whole-sale business of stationary and refrigerated goods etc. It was also averred that since the plaintiff and his son both being Directors of M/s Anoop Industries Private Limited, they are looking after the entire work of the company. As plaintiff company was having its registered office at 17, Gopi Nath Marg on rent @ Rs.300/- per month and subsequently the rented premises was sold by its owner in the year 1980, therefore, the office of the company was shifted in June, 1980 at 11, Civil Lines Scheme in the Bungalow of one Shri S.L. Lakhera on monthly rent of Rs.1,600/- per month and for the working office of the company as a licensee. Shri Roop Narain allowed plaintiff to use premises in Mayur Talkies, Jaipur. Subsequently, the plaintiff had to vacate the premises, therefore, took another premises on rent for two years from one Jagdish Mal Mehta on 1.11.1982 @ Rs.1,500/- per month with the condition to further increase rent @ Rs.1,600/- per month total amounting to Rs.3,200/- per month. A rent-note was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of Jagdish Mal. It was also averred that the plaintiff was finding it difficult to maintain its registered office and working office at different places and the premises on rent of the plaintiff with the defendant would meet his requirement. The need of the plaintiff being bonafide and reasonable as compared to defendant and the plaintiff will suffer great hardship as compared to the defendant in case the premises occupied by the defendant of the plaintiff is not vacated and handed over to him. It was also averred that the cause of action arose in the year 1980 and 1982 when the plaintiff had to run two offices for the company and further in relation to standard rent in the year 1983 when defendant declined to fix standard rent and also committed default in making payment of rent from 1.3.1979 to 1.9.1979. A prayer was made to pass a decree for eviction against the defendant-appellant from suit premises. It was also prayed that standard rent be fixed @ Rs.437.50 from 1.3.1983 excluding house tax and cost be also awarded.