Kumari Ruchi Bansal And Another vs Babli And Others

Leave granted.

The eviction petition was filed by the appellants/landladies (both are sisters (unmarried)) who are musicians seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants initially on three grounds: (1) their bona fide requirement;(2) Nuisance created by the tenants and (3) arrears of the rent. During the course of the trial, the arrears of rent were deposited. Therefore, the third ground was not pressed. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had held in favour of the appellants/landladies concluding that the appellants/landladies need the premises (shops) for their bona fide use and occupation for running the music classes. Both the Courts also held that the tenants have caused nuisance in the shops. Thus, ordered for eviction of the tenants/respondents from the shops. The High Court in the revision petition set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court only on the ground that the appellants/landladies had not mentioned the existence of more two shops in the building.

Having gone through the material on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in concluding so. We find from the evidence that totally four shops were available with the appellants/landladies out of which one was used by the appellants/landladies for storing the old goods. It is also born out from the affidavit filed by the respondents/tenants that appellants/landladies had got four shops. Thus, it is made known to the Court both by respondents/tenants and appellants/landladies that the appellants/landladies have got four shops including these two shops in question. In our considered opinion, no prejudice was caused to the respondents/tenants by omitting to plead in the plaint about the existence of two shops. We also find that the appellants/landladies have got bona fide requirement for starting the music coaching center. The appellants/landladies are the better master of their requirement of premises. Moreover the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court relating to nuisance is not even adverted to by the High Court.

Be that as it may, since we find that the appellants/landladies have got the bona fide requirement, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the same stands set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The respondents/tenants are granted 06 months' time to vacate the premises subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks from today.