\ ” IQH :c'cum‘ a? CHHATTxseARH AT BILAsPu {L} {53: Hon'ble :‘Ar. T.P.5HARMA, First Appaal N032 9f 2003 Pmvur Adhiksha and others k . Lam Shu and others kla Post for ED712909 W H R Vs JUDéEMENT H§H GOURT OF CHHA‘I'TI5GARH AT BILA$PUR Firsf Aggea! No.32 of 26(33 IM SB : Hon'bie Mr. TP. Shame. J. 1. Pravar' Adhikshak, Dak Glam" (P.O.) Ruipur- \Vib'hag Main Pos'r Office, Raipur (6.6.) ’ 2. Post Mayra!" (65mm!) Raipur Parikshe'rm, Raipur (6.6.) 3. Mukhay Chikifsc: Adhikuri Dak Tar Aoushadhaiaya (Hospifai), 19/A Ravi Nagar, Gmh Nirman Sahkar'i 5ami1’i, Ravi $hcmkar Ward, §aipur {5.6.} 4. Unkm of India, Threugh The Secretary Sanchar' Manfraiaya, Kendiya Suchivuiaya, New Deihi (india) Versus esgandgn‘rs 1. Lalii‘ Shukla, agad abgu‘r 52 yaars, 5/0 Shri Gangasagar Shukia, 2. 5mt5cwi‘m Shukla, aged abcu‘r 4E years, W/o Shri Laiif Shukla 3. Rahuidev 5huk!a, aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Laii‘r Shukia AI! residen‘r 9f House Mal/118, Chhofapam Ruipur, Tahsii and DisfiRuipur (C.G.) {FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96‘ OF THE CODE OF CIVIL ‘ f9ROCEDURE) Mr. S.K.Beriwa!, Sfunding counsel for The appelian?s. Mr.P,K.C.Tiwari, senior counsel with Mr.5hushi Bhushun, counsel for The responden‘rs. V R / Judaimm? {"asseci on Lgj‘gjuiy! 2G0?) Thig agpaa! is direchd agaiMT ‘H'ze judgmen‘? & dggmg dafad 3.22.2G0—2 passed by The 43-“ id‘ddifimai Dz‘s riw .Tudga, §a§§2un §n 5M3 5%? Ns.110 AIEOGE whereby ‘(ha l armd 4% Addifism! D25 rim” Judg hgs decreed The suit? fm‘ evic‘?ion and mrraars 0f ran? undar Sec?” {é} 01F ’zrha {ihhawkmrh .éccgmmodaficn Cantrell Act 19(31 (in show!” m n1 5V 5 ‘3‘“. ‘AcfW I. 2. The judg {212.31% r33. dacree is $51! Ewgad by fha Gpg‘eimn‘rside‘fendaws cm 1&2 gmemd trim? wifhmJ? #hgrg being any pmve: 0f bwafidg nagdi ”rive: {Scarf baiaw has ciacr‘egd Tha sui? f0!" evicfian clad irhearaby wmmiffed cm iiiggaiiw{ 3, Briaf facts 93" i’he $1-9: tire Thai‘ 'rhe raspcndanfs gra 1?}!2 izmdiard 9f The suit? acmmmadm‘ion bearing m.?.?!659/’1 and 2 and 1*he appailams am fawn? in fha sui‘? accommgda‘i’im. Rs.5GDO/- gar mgni’h ien<9 {gagd was emcumd rm 215.91 'fm' fhme yacws. Affgr axpiry of 1mg Seasa ”deed, snmzimwf rawawed The. prawn? appeihnts affgr' 2xpiw 911: “We :aagg degfi hat/z raquagmd ?ha rasgendanfs far ragair af the suif mmmemémim and finaihg suit? accommadafien was regaired a? ‘khe insmnca m“: ' $5922 r'wewn? a.gr‘hefianfs Md fhgv i have dgducfa The cost of repair N? Q3480i3l— fwm fhe remix The raspamdam‘s am n0? having any .ess rmd cxcwmmoda‘tian mguirgs bcimficgy for nan-residan'é‘m! purpow af carrying businass. '4. Nwica far- evicficm wag servad upan the. a¢pailanfs. The respgndan'fs have alggJ chimed dam D. 553???? as 01F Rs.2§€)/— per day. They appellanw have admi?fad tenancy and JsQ Vdmi‘fmd The remir of sui? accammadmi‘an bu? They have; denied 'the banrfida need 0f We mspmdénfs‘ On fha basis m‘: mmrman? §s$ues werg framed sand aftar' groviding cm eggggrmni‘ly .of haa '9 the pgMies, 5uif WM deemed J? A J £1 . m 4 1 ‘gakk f? T2,, ‘\‘-% 13' I have. heard Mr» SKBeriwai, SmMEng cgunsei for the appellan'rs and _}\1\.rqP.K.£.Tiwarii 58mm munszi vii??? MnShashi Bhushan, muma! far the mspandgnfs and perusad The gudgmenf and decree impugngd and regard 9f The trim) Caurt 5- Th2. raspmdeMs-r have also filed woss—objectian umdar Order 41 Quiz 22 {2) cf fhaa Code. 9f Civil Pmmdum ia which 1'hay are Qbjgcfed tha decrea impugmd an The gmand ‘rhwi' The, 69w? below ha$ n0? awardad campensa’dm 9f R525Ql— par day and has n91? awardad baianca 9f QsZQQL ma& hgs £1156) cammi‘tfgd Hiemmv bv imnnsino condifim 9f J I i ‘I'V ' J paymtznf 9f camgenSaTim: under $aciri§m 12 (5a) 9f thg Act Ti. Lvamed magma! appearing for the appallanfs argued Thai: presen? appa§ian+s are ‘rgmn‘r in Tha suH' accommoda?ian and they hava raguiar§y paid fhe rent Affer germission fmm “fl/2e, respendanw, they hava made remir The Sui? accommodafion and deducfad RSAEOW- c951? 0f repair. The piaesanf suit accammoda‘rign is n9? required benafid§y by The reSgandems far #heir business: and prgsen'r piace of businass are " sufficiem f9 meat fha requiremem‘ Learned caunse! furiher submi‘m fha‘? fhe, 59m? babw has awardzd m9n1‘h5y damages of Rs.§QOD/— Le. Qmmm? 9f momhiy rent fharaforz, fha Cour? balmy was nm campewnf 1'9 award Rsv25D/— pa“ day f9?” furJrher damages. Learngd ceLmsel aisan arguad *hrl‘l‘ ?hey hnw depasimd fhe new? after judgmgnt and dacrgg imgugmd hm have n92? dzpasikd The rant regu!ar!y and deiay in depgsifirég the: ran? may be. cena‘ionad. Lgarned cmmsel 01$) submits Tha? fha appe§iaMs hava aka fiiad an applicafian for candanafim 9f éalay in Ammi?ing irhg man‘fhiy ran? vitig IANQL wwrv- ‘ 8. Laarnzd wumei piacgd reliance §n fhg maffgr of 5m‘tKamm De»! v. 3k. Vdsdev‘ ir. w &§ch ET has hear; h€!d by 14%: Apex €eur? Tim? sfrikéng aff dgfanca of The defgrrdanf i5 dissrafianar‘y not mandatory. L‘amed ‘Am 1'995 sc 985 w \. NV munse-i furl-hat" piqcad mEignce iv! the matter gf Ram iekuME v. Bheia Na?§1 aind amh‘zer‘ 2 in windch if has baan he!d by :‘he Apex Cour ‘fha‘? ‘fhaa Ran? Csn'i’r'dler has power 1'0 madam fhe defauh on the par? 43f The fanny? i¥1 making pw’zmani‘ w dzgnsi‘? id} fui‘um rent m“ to extent time fer iigch paymeni’ m" dagesét Lgamed gaunsei (dsx) {ahead reiirmce i?! flee: ma??er sf Rem? y‘aahaghwaré v ahmv Kumarg r“ which E? has been haw. §2y “the High Cam“? cf Madhya Pmdash’ Thg’r delay in deposit m‘ ran? may bg soMongd 0n axpiaining materia! reasarm 9. {3n fha GThar hand, {earnad ceunw! appearing fm‘ thg raspandenm argued ‘thaf irhz agpellcmw were under an abiigation to degasi? ran? ragulgr-W éurmg gendemcy er? The Wm! and £950 during pendgncy of the 99am! in accerdange- wifh fEac‘Irien 13 (1} m5 the, Act but fhe apgelianw have faiied m depgsif ram wifhin 'khg Stigmata Time regular-bl, 1‘her3fore, defence 9f We appeHams sheuid be struck off 'm accwdanca wifh sub—gammy! {6) af Saaim 13. af fhe Adz Laarned ecume! furrhgr argued ‘rhm‘ 'rha resgwdanfs have pmvzd bonafide mad and eviéancg Mia-ring 1's bmaé‘ide need is un—rgbu??ed‘ The. landlard is i'hg has? per-wry fa judge hi3 ham fida mad. Tim resmrzdems/plaintiffs hmig $gecifimiiy demmdad damaggs 9f i-Es.25Q/'- par day and also dagased in their evidence. $amr3 has m? been rebuiH‘ed by '‘zhe ncuiar and dacuman'mry eviciame m? fhe: appeHan’é's but 'irha Cour? bebw has no? awarded any damagzg. The Cam? beigw hag mi: directed far payment of Rs.2w0/— diffzrence 9f rem: and also no? awarded 595‘? of suit. Learned munsa! alga argued ma? his crass-Qbjecfion should be albwed and ‘rhe agpea! be dismissed. 3$ 10, 5ui'r was decread an *thg ground of bomfide need 0f fha s‘gspandenTs. Qriginmlly’ ieasa was granfred for 3 yeaw ranewable from fime m 'Zr'zme bu? ieasa deed was m? renewed. Affer expiry of !zas.e deed ‘Am 1984 sc £392 \32005 (I) MPJQ 304 \ fine present resggndenfs/plainfiffs have received ram and even accepted Thz ,r-aquasT 0f the appe!!an1's miating 1n repair of the sui? ascommnda‘tian and deducfgd Rs.480G/— :15 repair charges. €onduc? of the gar-ties sham; that even af'rer expiry 9f lgase. deed, parf§es hava cont§nued their re!at§onship as landlard and Tar-gm? and an fine dam 0f fi!ing 9f the suit resnondents ara landlord and appeikmts are tenant. 3urda?! m grave bemfide requimman? 9f fhe suit accommodmian far mn—msiden‘rial purpose muss an The respQndenis/plaimiffs. The presem‘ respsndenfs havz sxaminad Lali'f §hukla (PW—1) and Rahu! Shukk! (PW—Z) as a \A:ifnasses who have categoricaHy .dapased Thar? thz sniff nacommsdjstien is required, bamfidly fQr fheir business and Rahu! Shukk‘ wiil carry affirm of HindusThcn Lever 9f clearing and fwwarding and Lslif 5hukla wan? t9 smm- busings- cf Phsfia Moulded Furniture in tha suif premisas. They are proved documen‘rs re!a'r§ng ta their business (ExsP/lQ To 14). They have specifically deposed 'iha‘i' they are mi having any \Issenf suitable aceammoda'i'ian fer Their- business in Rama? tawn. 11. The present appeiianfs have examined C. Ahawrar (DW-1) w.e .as dep-sed ihair according To his infermairimi ihe respendents/piaimiffs are he? need {if suiir accommoda‘iion, He has deposed in para-1E5 0f his ersss-examiha’tian "iha'i' on the hnsis n5 ie’r‘rer for renewal wrih‘en by The slain’iiffs in “the year 199? he presumed. ‘iha‘i fhe giaintiffs are he? e heed ef suit accommodation. .Mve- e; 12. The present appellam‘e have not adduced any evidence Ta show tha'r fi'he present respondents are having any suitable vegan? accommodation in Eaihur form or the plaintiffs are not a need. of the suit accommodation for their business. In case of bonafide nesd, plaintiff/landlord is the best person to decide for which accommodation would satisfy his honafide need. The plai.t.ffs hove categorically deposed the grounds of their bonafide need and have also proved the documents'relating to their business but some is Lin-rebutted. Burden to pray/g bgmféda mead was an fhe pininf.ffs and ma piaéntiff$ haw. discharged frhgir Wirr‘ian‘ 3.3. 0a :I‘ha basis 9f the, evideme, V‘he 59w? bdaw has dacréad Th9. pressn? appgihnts have made necessqrv rgpair and may were authorizad this daduc? ms? Qf repair. Tha {Jwr‘r belaw has righfb/ acsapfed the 50$? cf rapgir bu? has n9? awarded remmning par"? m‘ rem i3. Rs.200!—. 14. in usage of hndierd wryd Tamar dispufe, mani'.h/ ran? awarded fa iandiwd or zvicfion is sui‘w‘icien? H cam,pensa‘Hcn. Th» cam“? bebw has righ?!y awardgd Q$.5000,/- monthly as mama graft? Til! a‘he deiiyary 9f poiesvsien 9f tha suit Muse. The Liam? helm! has no? cemmitfed any §liegalify by no? awarding ?he damagas m,” Rs.20£‘}/~ er 25Q,/- par- day. The Cbarir beiaw has: dacraaci The suif undgr §ectinn 12 (1) (f) m‘ The A513. irherefgre,‘ the «gar? bgiew has righfly passed fhg concii'tiam! g‘ecrgz undm Sacw‘gn 12 (6} of Tha A51: 15 Fm the faregMng reasuns, I $9 not? find my scape far iwarifergnce i?! we Judgment? and decree i.pugned. The appeal and cresg—objecfion are {iabie 1’9 be riismissed and if is: herehy dismisszd wi‘hh cgsfs. The appraiSams ska.” baar- \rhzir awn casts and wsfs of 1’he raspon..gn‘rs 9f the sui? and adsa 9f The appeaL Advom‘re fee as par 15. “agree be drawn up accardingiy.