RANCHI, India, June 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 6:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1.
2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Civil Court, Ranchi in Eviction Title Suit No. 52 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 has been decreed and defendant / petitioner has been directed to vacate the suit premises within three months.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the plaintiff / opposite party has filed title suit bearing Title Eviction Suit No. 52 of 2006 stating therein that he is the co-owner-landlord of the suit premises described in Schedule-A of the Plaint and had further stated that the defendant / petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on month to month basis situated near Main Road, Ranchi. It is alleged that the defendant / petitioner is running a business in the name and style of "Exide Power Point" and "M/s New Battery Centre" in his name and in the name of his wife (defendant no. 2) and pay rent @ Rs. 350/- as fixed by the Rent Controller 20 years ago. Till then, the actual contractual rent was Rs. 130/- per month. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation for opening a business of dealer for consumer items and electric and electronic gadgets such as Television Sets, Refrigerators, Washing Machines, Room Coolers, Air Conditioners, Fans etc. The plaintiff / O.P. No. 1 requested the defendant / petitioner to vacate the suit premises in view of his necessity, but the defendant flatly denied / refused to vacate the suit premises on 17th / 19th April, 2006 respectively, rather started demanding Rs. 1.5 Lacs in consideration for vacating the suit premises. It is further alleged that the defendant has occupied the suit premises since more than 50 years. There are other tenants also under the plaintiff / O.P. No. 1, against whom eviction proceeding on different grounds have been initiated and pending before the competent civil court. The other two tenants have also vacated their respective tenanted premises, one shop which was vacated on mutual understanding is used by his elder son Rakesh Sarawgi for retail medicines shop, wherein younger son of the plaintiff is also engaged in assisting his brother. The plaintiff requires the suit premises for establishing a business for his second son Uttam Sarawgi and other family members, who are sitting idle.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9dnn11cEHxl9TuwkV56RYb%2BDcLbsJynW%2BJctuiQbpMmZ&caseno=C.R./16/2014&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010209732014&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
