KEDAR NATH SHYAM SUNDAR Vs. HEMLATA KOTECHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.2005 passed by Munsif, Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit No. 22 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the petitioners/ Defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the opposite party no. 8.

(2.) It appears that the opposite parties/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of petitioners/defendants from the suit premises, the details of which given in Schedule-A to the plaint, on the ground of personal necessity . It is stated that the suit premises was originally owned by Shyam Ji Amba Ram Kotecha, the father of Durlabh Ji Kotecha( Original plaintiff no. 1) . It is further stated that on 22.2.1949 Shyam Ji Kotecha partitioned his property amongst his four sons and the suit premises alloted in the share of Durlabh Ji Kotecha. Further case of the opposite parties/plaintiffs is that, the original Plaintiff no. 1 let out the suit premises to petitioners/defendants on rent of Rs. 65/- per month . It is further stated that later on the rent was enhanced. It is further stated that at the time of filing of the suit, the petitioners/defendants were paying Rs. 501/- per month as rent. It is further stated that Durlabh Ji Kotecha ( Original Plaintiff No. 1) also partitioned his properties amongst his sons. The suit premises came in the share of opposite party no. 8 (Plaintiff no. 2) namely, Harshadji Kotecha. It is stated that the deed of partition was accordingly prepared and authenticated before the Notary Public, Ramgarh on 12.7.1995. It is stated that thereafter opposite party no. 8 got the suit property mutated in his name. It is further stated that opposite party no 8 being an unemployed graduate is sitting idle without any job and business. It is further stated that opposite party no. 8 is residing in the house of his brother. Accordingly, it is stated that opposite party no. 8 require the suit premises for his residential purposes as well as for opening a shop for running the business of Motor Tyre, Tube & its Accessories. It is also stated that from the partial eviction of the suit premises, the purpose of the opposite party no. 8 will not be served, thus he requires the entire suit premises. It is stated that the opposite party no. 8 had requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises but they finally on 1.12.1998 refused to vacate the same, therefore the present suit filed.

(3.) It appears that the petitioners/defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. It is admitted by petitioners that the original plaintiff no. 1 is the owner of suit premises. It is also admitted by the petitioners/defendants that they are occupying the suit premises as tenant. However the petitioners/defendants denied the assertion of opposite parties/plaintiffs that a partition took place in the year 1995 and in the said partition the suit premises come in the share of opposite party no. 8. It is further stated that the opposite party no. 8 is not unemployed and is doing the business of Motor parts, Motor tyre and tube in a portion of Holding No. JC 23/A standing over the Plot No. 474 near Shanti Talkies, Ramgarh. It is further stated that besides the aforesaid business, opposite party no. 8 is also dealing in edible oil and food grains as commission agent. It is also stated that opposite party no. 8 is also looking after the management of Cinema Halls namely, Shanti Talkies and Ashok Cinema. It is stated that plaintiffs have no personal requirement for the suit premises. It is also stated that even assuming that the opposite parties/plaintiffs have personal necessity for the suit premises, then also the purpose of opposite parties/plaintiffs will be served from partial eviction of the suit premises. Accordingly, it is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.