S.A.No.1073/2014 Second Appeal No.1073/2014 03.08.2015 Shri Sameer Beohar, learned counsel for appellant.
Heard on admission.
This is defendant's Second Appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2014 in Regular Civil Appeal : 20-A/2013, affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2009, passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2009.
The plaintiff brought an action for eviction and vacant possession of suit premises : shop No.36/256 Sadguru Kabeer Sansthan Gurudwara, Fort Road, Rewa on the ground of bonafide need and for reconstruction as the same was in dilapidated condition and for arrears of rent.
The defendant while not disputing landlord tenant relationship denied plaint allegation contending inter alia that the plaintiff has other suitable place in Rewa town and that the premises was not in a dilapidated condition as alleged. It was urged that the intention of the plaintiff was to get the shop vacated so that it may fetch more rent.
The trial Court framed three issues. And on the basis of evidence on record found the claim of bonafide need as genuine and accordingly decreed the suit. The trial Court found that plaintiff being a religious and charitable concern were in need of the place to meet out the increasing demand of Kabir's literature and other research work. The trial Court also found that there was no vacant space available in the S.A.No.1073/2014 town to cater the need of the plaintiff. After analyzing the material evidence on record the trial Court found : ’’21. उक्त पैरा 16, 17, 18, 19 व 20 में प्रस्तुत तथ्यों के अवलोकन से यह तथ्य सुस्पष्ट प्रतित होता है कि वादी संस्थान को कबीर पंथ सम्प्रदाय कि साहित्यिक पुस्तकें एवं आडियो-विडयो के कैसेट के वितरण के लिए उपयुक्त दुकान की आवश्यकता है जिसकी पूतर्ि के लिए वादी संस्थान ने दिनांक 26/1/07 में एक मिटिंग आहूत की जिसमें जवाहरलाल ने यह प्रस्ताव रखा कि उक्त कायर्ों के लिए एक दूकान की आवश्यकता है जबकि वे उपस्थित नहीं थे लेकिन उसी मिटिंग में दूसरा प्रस्ताव संस्ेथा के सचिव श्री लल्लु सिंह ने रखा जो मिटिंग में उपस्थित थे व उनके हस्ताक्षर प्र0पी03 में बने हुए है जिसमें प्रतिवादी की दुकान पर सबसे ज्यादा उपयुक्त दुकान बताया गया है। अतः प्रतिवादी का यह कहना कि वादी के द्वारा मुख्य रूप से बुलायी गयी मिटिंग दिनांक 26/1/07 बनावटी व मनमानी है सत्य प्रतीत नहीं होता क्योंकि इसी के अग्रशरण में वादी ने दूसरी मिटिंग 18/3/07 को बुलायी जिसमें सभी 11 सदस्य पुनः उपस्थित होकर संस्था की सद्भाविक आवश्यकता की पूत्रि के लिए प्रतिवादी के विरूद्ध प्रयिा प्रारम्भ करने के लिए वादी को प्राधिकृत किया। इस परिपेक्ष में प्रतिवादी का यह कथन की मिटिंग बुलाने के लिए 15 दिन पूर्व दी गयी नोटिस की सूचना का रजिस्टर प्रस्तुत न होने से मिटिंग अवैध है अग्राहय किया जाता है प्रतिवादी का यह कहना कि वादी के पास अन्य दुकानें हैं जो प्रतिवादी के दुकानों से ज्यादा युक्ति-युक्ति हैं, यह कहना ग्राह्य नहीं किया जा सकता। ... ’’ Though the findings have been criticized by the defendant. It is stated that there are other places available to carry out the work of spreading of thoughts through sale of books, audio/video casettees and other literature, however, as held in R.C.Tamrakar vs. Nidi Lekha that - S.A.No.1073/2014
10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
[see also Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
vs. Smt. Kamal Vasini Agrawal 2005 (3) JLJ 97].
-it is thus the landlord who is his own master to decide as to the place which is most suitable to carry out the trade and vocation.
The findings arrived at by the trial Court also found favour by the First Appellate Court which concurred with the findings.
Though it is contended that the findings are perverse as there was inter se dispute as to ownership of the suit property, however, there is no material on record to establish that the alleged dispute in any manner lessened the status of the plaintiff as landlord.
Another ground raised by the defendant that being a public trust and the Collector being its manager the suit for eviction without his prior permission was not tenable. No such plea having been taken by the defendant in his written statement before the trial Court, nor before the first Appellate Court cannot now be allowed to raise the same at the Appellate stage; for the first time. Thus, since there is no S.A.No.1073/2014 factual foundation for the plea raised, no cognizance can be taken of this plea.
The decision in Laxman Prasad vs. Shrideo Janki Raman 1973 MPLJ 842 reliance whereof has been placed by the appellant on paragraph 8 of the judgment to substantiate the contention that unless duly resolved, a person cannot be said to be an agent of the principal to file the suit. This contention when tested on the anvil of the evidence of the plaintiff's witness No.1 deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, no indulgence is caused.
In the result, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand