RAMESH CHANDRA ARORA Vs. MURLIDHAR KAPSIME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed against the Judgment and Decree passed by Sub Judge-II, Koderma dated 14.09.2007 and 27.09.2007 respectively in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the suit has been decreed against the petitioner and proforma opposite parties.

(2.) The original plaintiff-Smt. Sakuntala Devi was the owner/land lady of the suit premises, details of which given in Schedule-'A' of the plaint. It is further stated that the suit premises let out to the petitioner in the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs. 221/ -. It is further stated that at the time of creation of tenancy husband of original plaintiff was alive and he used to collect rent from the petitioner on behalf of original plaintiff and used to issue rent receipt. Further case of original plaintiff is that the petitioner and proforma opposite parties are member of joint family property and they are carrying a joint family business in the name and style of Chhabra Sweet House in the suit premises. It is further stated that after the death of husband of original plaintiff, her elder son Satyanarayan Prasad was looking after the affairs of the tenancy and he used to collect rent from the defendant and issued rent receipts on behalf of original plaintiff. It is further stated that from 1973, the rent receipts issued in the name of proforma opposite party Surendra Singh Chhabra, whereas, from 20.06.1980, the rent receipts issued in the name of proforma opposite party-Ashok Kumar Chhabra.

(3.) Further case of original plaintiff-Sakuntala Devi is thai: she had four sons namely Satyanarayan Prasad, Murlidhar Prasad, Manohar Prasad and Gourishankar Prasad. It is further stated that Rakesh Kumar Kapsime is the son of Satyanarayan Prasad, Vishal Kumar is the son of Manohar Prasad, Bhabesh Kumar and Vikash Kumar are the sons of Murlidhar Prasad. It is further stated that aforesaid grandsons of original plaintiff are educated, adult and unemployed and are sitting idle. It is stated that the aforesaid four grandsons of original plaintiff wants to start medical shop, general store, hardware shop and retail cloth shop respectively. It is further stated that the suit premises situated at Ranchi-Patna road, in the heart of city. Therefore, the same is most suitable for opening aforesaid shops. Accordingly, the original plaintiff asked the petitioner and proforma opposite parties to vacate the shop for her personal necessity. It is stated that when the petitioner and other proforma opposite parties refused to vacate the same, an advocate notice was served upon them for vacating the suit premises, inspite of that petitioner and proforma opposite parties did not give any heed to her request, hence, the present suit filed for eviction of petitioner and proforma opposite parties.