Landlords have the right to determine their business needs, and tenants cannot dictate terms regarding business locations; bona fide necessity must be proven for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in original civil suit No. 82/1999, whereby the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) and directed defendant to handover the vacant possession of the disputed premises within two months and to pay Rs. 2,400/- per month as use and occupation charges.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent to the effect that they had purchased the Shop No. 83 Bapur Bazaar Chowkdi Vishvesharji, Jaipur from Deep Chand on 25.06.1988 on account of personal and bona fide necessity. They wanted to do business in the suit premises. Defendant took suit premises on rent on lease for 5 years in 1978. Defendant had to vacate the suit premises on 28.02.1983 but defendant had not vacated the same. Plaintiffs and Deepchand gave the information to defendant regarding purchase of suit shop but despite that defendant had not given vacant possession of the suit premises and also defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months. Defendant had not paid or tendered rent from July 1988. Plaintiffs’ sons Sarad and Abhishek attained majority and they wanted to do cloth and marwadi dresses business in the suit premises. They had no place for doing the business anywhere else. If the suit premises are not vacated, then plaintiffs sons would suffer comparative hardship. Partial eviction is not possible. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed.

3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff and submitted that they had no reasonable and bona fide necessity for the suit shop. Defendant had not defaulted in paying rent. Defendant had sent the rent money to the plaintiff but they refused to accept it. Plaintiff is doing the business for sale and purchase of immovable properties. They wanted to sale the suit property at high rates by evicting them.

4. Plaintiffs had other showrooms also. So, necessity of the plaintiffs is only desire. They had adequate place for the business. If eviction decree is passed then defendant would suffer more comparative hardship than plaintiffs. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiffs purchased disputed shop from Deep Chand for business purposes?

2. Whether defendant had not paid or tendered rent from July 1988 to plaintiffs and thus defaulted in paying rent for more than six months?

3. Whether plaintiffs had personal, bonafide and reasonable necessity of the disputed shop for the business of their sons? 4. Whether plaintiffs would suffer more comparative hardship than the defendant if eviction decree is not passed the defendant from the suit property?

5. Whether none of the parties would suffer hardship if partial eviction decree is passed against the defendant from the suit property?

6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get rent of Rs. 2400/- towards rent and house tax with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the defendants continuously on account of use and occupation charges?

7. Relief?

6. To prove their case, plaintiffs adduced the evidence of PW-1 Uday Kant, PW-2 Geeta Mishra, PW-3 Abhishek Mishra and PW-4 Daulat Ram and to prove its case, defendants adduced the evidence of Bhoop Singh as DW-1, Shyamnarayan Dviwedi as DW-2 and Ramesh Kumar Garg as DW-3.

7. Trial Court after hearing the parties passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the disputed premises within two months and to pay Rs. 2,400/- per month as use and occupation charges.

8. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant sub