Honble GUPTA, J.–This is a defendants appeal, in a suit for eviction, decreed by both the learned courts below, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity.

(2). The facts of the case are, that the plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction, alleging interalia, that the property described in para-1 of the plaint belonged to one Hastimal. This comprises of two shops on the ground floor, being shops No. 2 and 3, which were purchased along with second storey, by the plaintiff, and the first storey was purchased by the plaintiffs father, from said Hastimal, by separate registered sale deeds. Both the shops belong to plaintiff, the first storey is of the ownership of the plaintiffs father, while the second storey is in the ownership of plaintiffs, and that plaintiff and his father live in the upper storey, above the two shops. With this it was alleged, that the defendant had become defaulter, as he had taken the shop on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-, and had paid rent upto 30.9.1990. The plaintiffs father is aged 65 years, and is a cardiac patient, having blood pressure also. Earlier the father was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Ganeshmal Bhanwarlal, in the premises of plaintiff uncles son Narpat Chand. That firm has been closed, and the premises have been handed over to Narpatchand, since 31.3.93. Thereafter the plaintiffs father started cloth business in the name and style of M/s. Bhanwarlal Dhanpatraj, as sole proprietor, in another shop at Katla, on the first story, as he could not get any other shop. While that shop is not in any manner suitable, looking to the old age, and cardiac ailments of the plaintiffs father, and it is a consistent health hazard to the plaintiffs father. According to the plaintiff, the suit shops have no wall in between, are practically one shop, are most convenient, and appropriate, for plaintiffs fathers business, as he lives in this very building, and will not have to climb stairs, and will be assisted by the family members, as well, the plaintiffs father has sufficient experience. In view of the present shop being on the first floor, customers cannot approach conveniently.

The factor of distance between shop, where the plaintiffs father is carrying on business, and the residence, was also pleaded. It was pleaded, that it would be convenient, more so when, the defendants house is at a distance of 8 Kms. Interalia with this, a decree for eviction was prayed.

(3). The defendant filed the written statement on 12.9.1995, contesting the suit. The plaintiff and his father having purchased upper stories, was denied, for want of knowledge. The fact about the shops having been purchased by the plaintiff was admitted. It was admitted that on the upper story above shops No. 2 and 3, the plaintiff and his father resides. Then, allegation of default was denied. It was pleaded that after September, 1990 rent was offered, but the plaintiff did not willfully receive, rather exerted pressure to increase rent to Rs. 700/-. Then, it was sent by money order also, which were refused to be received. It was pleaded, that there is a sub-meter, but the defendant has obtained a separate mater, and separate electricity connection. Therefore, there was no question of payment of any electricity charges. Then, regarding bonafide necessity, it was denied that plaintiffs father is having any heart ailment, and therefore any requirement was denied. It was denied that plaintiffs father was earlier carrying on partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Ganeshmal Bhanwarlal in the shop of Narpatchand, or that firm has been closed, and the possession of the premises had been redelivered to Narpatchand. It was also denied, that the plaintiff has started fresh cloth business in the name and style of M/s. Bhanwarlal Dhanpatraj, as a sole proprietor, for want of knowledge. The allegation about plaintiffs father having not got any other shop, or the shop where he is carrying on business is not appropr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document