Chattisgarh High Court
Sudesh Kumar vs Bhagirathi (Died) Through Lrs 1 ... on 20 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 352 of 2021
Sudesh Kumar, S/o. - Shri D.P. Pandey, aged about -58 years, Occupation-
Business, M/s. Maruti Traders, Gayatri Mandir road, Raigarh, R/o. -
Gaushalapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Appellant/Defendant
Versus
1. Bhagirathi (Died) through LR's
1(A) Shakunatala Sharma, W/o. Late Bhagirathi Sharma, aged about-70
years,
1(B) Shobha Sharma, W/o. Late Rajendra Sharma, aged about-48 years,
1(C) Sanjay Sharma, S/o. Late Bhagirathi Sharma, aged about-45 years,
1(D) Ajay Sharma, S/o. Late Bhagirathi Sharma,
1(E) Amit Sharma, S/o. Late Rajendra Sharma,
1(F) Sumit Sharma, S/o. Late Rajendra Sharma,
1(G) Prateek Sharma, S/o. Late Rajendra Sharma,
All residence of Thethwar Para, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.)
1(H) Pramila Devi Ratawa, W/o Shyam Sundar Ratawa, aged about -55
years, R/o Village - P/o. Shasan, Tahsil and District - Sambalpur, (Odisha)
1(I) Babita Sharma, W/o. Shri Subhash Sharma, aged about-45 years,
R/o - Village - Chaans, (Bokaro) Tahsil - Bokaro, District - Bokaro
(Jharkhand)
---- Respondents/Plaintiffs
For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
20.04.2022
1. This is tenant's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC
2
against the judgment & decree dated 04.12.2021, passed by 7th
Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 06/2019,
by which, learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal
preferred by the tenant/appellant, affirming the judgment & decree
passed by the trial Court granting eviction of the appellant/tenant from
the suit shop bearing Shop No. 4, area 178.5 sq.ft. situated at Nazul
Sheet No. 32, Plot No. 1, Gayatri Temple Thana Road, named and
styled as Martui Traders. [For the sake of convenience, the parties
would be referred to as per the status shown in the plaint]
2. Facts
of the case, as reflected in the plaint, are that original plaintiff
-Bhagirathi instituted a suit before the trial Court for eviction, arrears
of rent and for damages to the tune of Rs.21,000/- for the period from
01-01-2010 to 01-08-2010 against the appellant/tenant stating inter
alia that the plaintiff constructed four shops in Najul Sheet No. 32, Plot
No. 1, area 1860 sq. ft. out of the said four shops, shop No. 4, bearing
area 178.5 sq.ft. was given to the appellant/defendant/tenant at a
monthly rent of Rs. 800/- and also executed a rent agreement dated
11.05.1994. The said rent agreement was renewed on 22.05.1998 for
three years, which came to an end on 22.05.2001. It is further
averred that in the rent agreement without her consent, the defendant
cannot make any construction or alienate the suit property, despite
that the defendant constructed pathway on each side of the disputed
shop without consent of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he has
bonafide need of the disputed shop for his son to do the trading
business, hence, he filed the instant civil suit.
3. The defendant by filing his written statement denied all the averments
made in the plaint.
4. Learned trial Court, on the pleading of the parties, has framed as
many as five issues. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one
more witness namely Prateek Sharma as PW- 2 to substantiate his
pleadings whereas defendant has examined himself as DW-1 only in
support of his case.
5. Learned trial, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, has decreed the suit and directed the eviction of
the appellant/tenant from the suit premises within a period of two
months from the date of passing of this judgment & decree along with
damages to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- and further held that he is also
entitled for arrears of rent from the month of September to December,
2009. Against which, the defendant preferred first appeal before the
first appellate Court.
6. The first appellate Court, by its impugned judgment & decree dated
04.12.2021 passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 06/2019, has
dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment & decree passed by the
trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.
7. This Court, considering the fact that it is a landlord-tenant dispute,
has called upon the landlord & tenant for mediation before this Court.
In pursuance of the mediation, tenant, Mr. Sudesh K. Pandey
appeared along with his counsel and would submit that he is ready to
vacate the suit shop and submits that he may be given a time of one
year to vacate the suit shop.
8. Mr. Amit Sharma, who is one of the legal heirs of original plaintiff -
Shri Bhagirathi, is appeared in person before this Court alongwith his
counsel Mr. Hari Agrawal and accepted the proposal made by
appellant/defendant.
9. In view of the understanding arrived at between the parties, it is
directed that the appellant/defendant shall vacate the suit premises
bearing Shop No. 4, area 178.5 sq.ft. situated at Nazul Sheet No. 32,
Plot No. 1, Gayatri Temple Thana Road, named and styled as Martui
Traders by 30th April, 2023 positively. Furthermore, the
appellant/tenant has deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- as security
on 11.05.1994, which at present is with the plaintiff. Thus, the
plaintiff/landlord is directed to refund the 50% of the said security
amount i.e. Rs.37,500/- to the appellant/tenant at the time of vacating
the suit-shop. It is also directed that at the time of vacating the suit-
shop, the appellant/defendant may not damage the suit shop.
10. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties
and a compromise arrived at between them, the present second
appeal disposed off finally at the admission stage itself. A decree be
drawn-up accordingly.
Sd/-/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
amita
