Disposed

Radhacharan v. Bhagirathi Sharma (Dead ) Through Lrs.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2022FA/279/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a landlord-tenant eviction decree, the High Court considered a compromise reached during mediation. The appellant tenant agreed to vacate the shop within 1.5 years and resume rent payments. The court disposed of the appeal on admitted grounds based on this understanding.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to vacate premises by 31.01.2024 and deposit monthly rent until vacation; appeal disposed of on compromise.

Radhacharan Vs Bhagirathi Sharma (Dead ) Through Lrs. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

FA No. 279 of 2018

¶4

Radhacharan, S/o Janakram Patel, aged about 72 years, R/o Kirodimal Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhagirathi Sharma (Died) Through Lrs.

¶8

(I) Shakuntala Devi Sharma Wd/o Bhagirathi Sharma, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

(II) Rajendra Kumar Sharma (died) Through Lrs.

¶10

(a) Shobha Devi Sharma Wd/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 48 years, R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

(b) Amit Sharma, S/o, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 31 years R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

(c) Sumit Sharma, S/o, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 30 years R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

(d) Prateek Sharma, S/o, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 27 years R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh,Chhattisgarh.

¶14

(III) Sanjay Sharma S/o Bhagirathi Sharma, aged about 43 years, R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

(IV) Ajay Sharma S/o Bhatirathi Sharma aged about 40 years R/o Ramgudi Para, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

___________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

06/07/2022

¶21

This appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. A/124/2009 by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the suit preferred by Respondent/Plaintiff Bhagirathi Sharma(died) has been allowed.

¶22

Facts of the case are that the original Plaintiff Bhagirathi Sharma filed a suit before the Court below for eviction and arrears of rent against the Appellant/Tenant. The Plaintiff is the owner of four shops and entire shops is around 667 Sqft. and shop in question is 10 x 22 = 220 Sqft. marked as Shop No.3 in Schedule 'A' of the plaint situated at Thana Road, Raigarh (C.G.) which was given on rent to the Appellant/Tenant on 06.12.1996 on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, eventually the rent was increased to Rs. 150/- which comes to Rs. 1150/- rent of the shop in question. The Appellant/Tenant paid the rent of shop @ 1150/- till may 2007, thereafter, he is not paying the rent till date. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff having three sons and the eldest son Respondent No.II Rajendra Kumar Sharma having three sons namely Amit Sharma, Sumit Sharma and Prateek Sharma, they jointly running a business of lath machine factory, but the middle son of the Respondent raised some dispute in house which resulting mutual oral partition amongst the family. Consequently, all three sons got their partition in the joint family property. Elder son of the Respondent got shop in question in his partition, therefore, Plaintiff feels bonafide requirement of the shop in question, but the Appellant/Tenant

¶23

denied to evict the shop in question, he also changed the object of the shop given on rent. It was further pleaded that Appellant/Tenant is also not paying the rent from the year 2007, therefore, on these two grounds, the suit for vacation was filed by the Plaintiff.

¶24

After service of notice, Appellant/Tenant appeared before the Civil Court and filed his written statement by denying all the avernments pleaded in the plaint except the admitted fact.

¶25

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court has framed six issues for determination. After recording evidence of both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 28.03.2018, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of Respondent/Plaintiff. Hence, this appeal.

¶26

This Court is considering the fact that it is a landlord -tenant dispute and has called upon the landlord & tenant for mediation before this Court. In pursuance of the mediation, Nephew of the Appellant/Tenant Vasant Patel along with his Counsel Mr. Abhishek Saraf is present today before this Court. Like wise from the landlord side Respondent No. IV Ajay Sharma, Respondent No.II (b) Amit Sharma and Respondent No.II (d) Prateek Sharma are appeared along with their Counsel Mr. Hari Agrawal. All of them were identified by Mr. Hari Agrawal and Mr. Abhishek Saraf, respectively. Vasant Patel, nephew of the Appellant/Tenant would submit that as the Appellant/Tenant is aged about 75 years, therefore, he is unable to attend the proceedings of this Court today. He submits that Appellant/Tenant is ready to vacate the suit shop and for that he may be given time of 1 ½ years to vacate the suit shop.

¶27

Mr. Amit Sharma, Sumit Sharma and Prateek Sharma, legal heirs of original Plaintiff Bhagirathi Sharma(died) accepted the proposal made by the Appellant/Tenant Radhacharan.

¶28

In view of the understanding arrived between the parties, it is directed that the Appellant/Tenant shall vacate the suit shop

¶29

premises bearing Shop No.3, area 220 Sqft. situated at Nazul Sheet No. 32, Plot No.1, Gayatri Temple, Thana Road Raigarh positively on or before 31.01.2024. It is directed that at the time of vacating the suit shop, the Appellant/Tenant may not damage the suit shop by any manner. It is also directed that Appellant/Tenant will also deposit the monthly rent of the suit shop by 15^th of every month till the vacation of the suit to the legal heirs of the Plaintiff.

¶30

Considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and a compromise arrived at between them, the present appeal is disposed off at the admission stage itself. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶31

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶32

Shubham

Radhacharan v. Bhagirathi Sharma (Dead ) Through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhacharan v. Bhagirathi Sharma (Dead ) Through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir Sai Vs Lalit Kumar Sahu and Others

Mohaddisse Aajam Mission Vs Abde Ali and Others

Pankuri Vs Sangam Singh and Another

Ramayan Lal Pandey and Ors. Vs Radheshyam Patel and Another

Mirja Azizul Rehman Baig and Ors. Vs Roshan Bi and Ors.

Mahendra Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh