JUDGMENT :

1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2010 passed by 9th Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2006 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of defendant from shop No. J-47 situated on the ground and first floor at Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur for arrears of rent from July 2005 to August 2005 and damages has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff is the owner of Shop No. J-47 as detailed in the map attached with the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff gave the shop No. J-47 on rent to the defendant vide agreement dated 04.11.2004 for 11 months on monthly rent of Rs. 13,180/-. As per the terms of rent agreement, the defendant had to pay the rent on 5th day of every month. The defendant has stopped the payment of rent from July 2005, then the plaintiff made personal contact but he has not paid the rent despite request made by him. It has been further contended that after completion of studies, the plaintiff decided to start his cloth business and since there was no suitable place available to him, then he made personal request to the defendant to vacate the suit premises, also requested for payment of arrears of rent but the defendant has not paid the monthly rent and has violated the terms of rent agreement. It is contended that the shop is bonafide required for the plaintiff but defendant was not vacating the same, therefore, he has sent legal notice on 01.09.2005 and demanded vacant possession of suit shop.

3. It is further contended that after receiving the notice, the defendant has neither vacated the suit premises nor he paid arrears of rent, therefore, there was no option for the plaintiff to file the suit for ejectment. The plaint was amended and it was pleaded that the plaintiff has divided the shop on various parts and has given on rent to other persons. It is further contended that other than the disputed shop, one shop was given on rent to Smt. Sunita Garg, she was running her business in the name and style of Shakhi Saheli and the other shop was given on rent to Bharti Jain, she was running her business in the name and style of Rajdhani Saries. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit for eviction against Smt. Sunita Garg before the Court of Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2006, the Court has granted decree of eviction and arrears of rent on 27.11.2007. The plaintiff has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 which is pending for consideration before this Court. It is further contended that during execution proceedings Smt. Sunita Garg had given vacant possession of the shop measuring 15x18 squire feet, in which, the plaintiff has started his shop in the name and style of Chetna Sari but this space is not sufficient to run Sari business and readymade garments, therefore, the shop is bonafidely required for plaintiff to run his business smoothly. It has also been contended that the defendant has given rented shop to Vijay Agrawal as sub-tenant, in which Vijay Agrawal is running his business in the name and style of Rajgharana Saris, therefore, the suit shop deserves to be vacated for violation of terms of rent agreement.

4. The defendant has filed her written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and would submit that the plaintiff has enhanced the rent ignoring the provisions of Rent Control Act, therefore, she has moved an application for fixation of rate of suit shop, as such the defendant is not responsible for payment of Rs. 13,180/-. It has been further contended that whatever rent fixed by Rent Control Authority, she is ready to pay the rent. It has also been denied that the Shop has been divided in many parts and is given on rent to other person. It has also been