Satish vs Prakash Chandra

Heard.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2019 whereby the application filed for framing of additional issue has been rejected.

The respondent filed the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the present petitioner in respect of Shop No.8-A, situated at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sukhliya, Indore. The description of the shop in question is mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint. In support of pleadings in para no.1 of the plaint, the plaintiff has filed the copy of the sale deed by which he had purchased the suit shop.

After summons, defendant appeared and filed the written statement in which he has disputed the boundaries mentioned in the plaint as well as in the sale deed. However, he has not disputed that he is tenant in the shop. He has also specifically pleaded that he is paying the rent regularly since 2009 to the plaintiff. Since the suit is based on the bonafide need, therefore, the learned trial Court has framed seven issues for adjudication which are reproduced below:

"1. क्या, प्रतिवादी वादग्रस्त दुकान जो कि प्लाॅट नं. 8ए पंडित दीनदयाल उपाध्याय नगर सुखलिया इंदौर पर स्थित है जिसके भूखण्ड की लम्बाई-चैड़ाई 30 फीट गुणित 10 फीट है, में ढाई हजार रूपये प्रतिमाह की दर से वादी का किरायेदार हैं?

क्या, वादी को अपने पुत्र के व्यवसाय हेतु वादग्रस्त दुकान की सद्भाविक आवश्यकता है?

क्या, वादी द्वारा प्रतिवादी को उक्त किरायेदारी वाले स्थान को रिक्त करने के लिये विधिवत लिखित अग्रिम सूचना पत्र प्रेषित किया गया है?

क्या, शहर इन्दौर में वादी के पास उक्त व्यवसायिक प्रयोजन के लिये कोई युक्तियुक्त स्थान उपलब्ध नहीं है?

क्या, वादी प्रतिवादी से वादग्रस्त दुकान का रिक्त आधिपत्य प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?

क्या, वादी द्वारा वाद का उचित मूल्यांकन किया गया है?

सहायता एवं वाद व् ;;\"

The plaintiff has submitted the evidence by examining two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2.

At that stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC for framing additional issue as to whether the plaintiff is owner of Shop No.8-A ad-measuring 10x30 sqft? The learned Court has rejected the application vide order dated 29.07.2019 on the ground that burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled for decree and he has to prove the facts mentioned in the plaint which are matter of evidence.

The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of bonafide need against the defendant. The defendant in his written statements has not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant and payment of rent.

Now, the defendant proposing the issue in respect of ownership of the plaintiff of that shop that amounts to conversion of the eviction suit into title suit. The issue nos.1 to 7 have already been framed by the trial Court on the issue that whether the defendant is tenant of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for the vacant possession from the defendant. Therefore, by framing additional issue in respect of ownership, the nature of the suit would change specially to the fact that the defendant is not disputing the relationship and the suit is based on the bonafide need. The trial Court has observed that plaintiff has to prove his case. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The petition stands dismissed.