AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The delay in depositing the deficit court-fees is condoned and the said court-fees are accepted. The appeal is deemed to stand cured of such defect.
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant, who seeks to appear on change, to file his ‘no objection’ Vakalatnama in the concerned Department of this Court during the course of the day.
Subject to such filing, the matter is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below have decreed the suit for eviction filed at the behest of the plaintiffs/respondents against the defendant/appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the courts below proceeded merely on the submission of the plaintiffs’ witness no. 1 (PW1) to the effect that the plaintiffs require the suit premises to run a shop.
However, it is submitted that while discussing the said issue, the learned trial Judge did not enter into the evidence in that regard, but merely quoted judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is further argued that the learned Trial Judge recorded that the PW1 deposed that he does not have any trade license in his name and has no intention to run any business.
Thus, it is argued that the PW1 himself belied the plaint case of reasonable requirement.
It is submitted that both the courts below committed perversity in granting eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs.
However, even on a plain reading of the quotation of the PW1’s deposition in the Trial Court’s judgment, we find that the requirement pleaded by the plaintiffs was not that the PW1 intended to run a business but that a shop was required by them for the purpose of the wife of PW1 to run a shop from the suit premises.
Although it is admitted in the evidence that the PW1 does not have a trade license in his name, the same loses relevant in the above context.
Moreover, it is well-settled that it is not for the court or the tenant to dictate the requirement of the landlord and in the event the landlord pleads requirement for the purpose of starting a business from the tenanted premises and proves the same even by oral evidence, no further proof of business acumen or other requisites for immediately starting a business are required to be brought before the Court.
That apart, since both the courts below have returned a concurrent finding as to the plaintiffs having requirement for the suit premises on the ground of running a business therefrom, which has been substantially proved by oral evidence, we do not find any perversity in the courts accepting such oral evidence and passing a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement.
Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.
Thus, SAT No. 216 of 2023 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
CAN 1 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 are also dismissed accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, submits that the appellant be granted some time to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing an undertaking to hand over vacant and unencumbered possession of the suit premises to the landlord after such timeline is over.
We leave it open for the appellant to make an appropriate application in that regard before the executing court.
If such an application is filed, the executing court, upon hearing both sides, shall decide the same on its own merits.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.