Sarvjeet Singh vs Israil, Painter

T.P. Sharma, J.—By this appeal, the Appellant/Plaintiff has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the District Judge, Durg on 19.12.2003, in Civil Suit No. 9A/2003.

The judgment and decree is challenged on the ground that the learned District Judge has not considered the material sufficient for drawing inference that the present Appellant has proved the bona fide for suit accommodation and the Appellant is not in possession of any suitable vacant accommodation in Durg city and the Respondent has not deposited rent regularly.

The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff in short is that the present Appellant/ Plaintiff has tenanted of the suit accommodation situated near Polytechnic College, G.E. Road, Durg and the present Respondent is tenant in the suit accommodation. Monthly rent of the suit accommodation was Rs. 1100/-. Accommodation was tenanted for non-residential purpose. The present accommodation is required for Plaintiff''s son for his business. The Respondent has not deposited the rent from April, 1996 till 29.12.1997. Notice for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent has been served upon the Respondent and the suit for eviction and recovery of rent was filed. The Respondent/Defendant has admitted the tenancy but denied the rate of rent and has stated in his written statement that original rent was Rs. 400/- per month. Rs. 400/- per month accommodation is not required for business of son of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Even the accommodation is not sufficient for business of Auto Parts. The Plaintiff has already tenanted three big sizes of shops to other tenants. On the basis of averment of the parties, issues were framed and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Court below has arrived at a finding that the Appellant has not deposited rent regularly but accommodation is not required bonafidly by the Plaintiff for the purpose of business of his son and dismissed the suit.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and decree and record of the Court below.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant has filed the suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent. The Appellant is not in possession of vacant accommodation to satisfy his bona fide need. The Court below has arrived at a finding that the Respondent has not deposited rent regularly and committed regular default. Even he has not deposited rent during pendency of this appeal regularly. The Appellant has specifically pleaded and proved that no vacant accommodation is available for the purpose of business of his son but has admitted that three other shops were given in the rent to different persons. The Appellant has specifically stated that suit accommodation is required for spare parts business of his son-Harjeet Singh. The Defendant has not been able to bring anything in the cross-examination of the Plaintiff to discredit the statement relating to bona fide need. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Mst. Bega Begum and Others Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, in which it has been held by the Apex Court that reasonable requirement of the accommodation means undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the judgment and decree impugned and argued that though Respondent has not paid rent regularly, but the Appellant has utterly failed to prove bona fide need for his son, therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the suit.

Evidence of Plaintiff, his witness Bhagwan Singh @ Chhotu Mishtri and Respondent reveals that at the time of filing of the suit, no sufficient vacant accommodation was available to the Appellant to satisfy his bona fide need. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are also sufficient to establish that the Respondent has not deposited rent or paid rent regularly.

As regards the question of bona fide need is concerned, the Appellant has specifically deposed in his evidence that suit accommodation is required for spare parts business of his son. The Respondent/Defendant has not asked anything to these witnesses relating to his bona fide need and only has made suggestion in para-19 that suit accommodation is not required for business of his son. The present Defendant/Respondent has deposed in his evidence that probably the Plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction with an object to accommodate any other person. Landlord/Plaintiff is best person to decide at which accommodation will be suitable to satisfy his bona fide need. The statement of the Appellant is sufficient to prove the fact of bona fide need and the Court below has decided the issue of bona fide need against the Plaintiff on the ground that originally accommodation was tenanted for 6 months but after 6 months the Appellant has not filed any suit for ejectment and the Appellant has rented three other shops to different persons which disproved the fact of bona fide need.

It is not disputed that at the time of filing of the suit, no shops were vacant and shops were rented to different tenants and only on the ground that the Plaintiff has not recovered possession of the suit accommodation after lapse of 6 months is not sufficient to disprove the fact of bona fide need of the Appellant/ Plaintiff. The statement of the Appellant/Plaintiff is sufficient to prove the fact of bona fide need of the suit accommodation for son of the Appellant.

Admittedly, the present Respondent has not deposited rent regularly. Even he has not deposited rent regularly during pendency of this appeal and has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. The Court below has not considered the substantive statement of the Appellant and reached into a wrong conclusion. The order of dismissal of suit is not sustainable under the law.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed. judgment and decree of dismissal of suit is hereby set aside. Suit for eviction on the ground of Section 12A of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act for non-residential purpose is hereby decreed. The Appellant is entitled for rent @ Rs. 1100/- per month till the delivery of the vacant possession of the suit accommodation. The present Appellant is entitled for vacant possession of the suit accommodation after expiration of 2 months from the date of the judgment in accordance with Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act and non-payment of annual standard rent in accordance with Sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. The Respondent shall bear cost of the suit as well as cost of appeal of himself and cost of the Appellant. Advocate fees as per schedule.

Decree be drawn accordingly.