M/S Jain Sancheti and Associates and Anr. Vs Jasraj Begani

2 – Shri Ramesh Chand Sancheti, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Ratan Chand Ji Sancheti Partner M/s. Jain Sancheti & Associates, Medh Market, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Appellants/Defendants versus

¶11

1 - Jasraj Begani , aged about 59 years, S/o Late Shri Meghraj Ji Begani, R/o Medh Market, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent/Plaintiff

¶13

For Appellant :- Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate

¶14

For Respondent :- Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate

¶15

SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶16

09.07.2025

¶17

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellants/

¶18

defendants was admitted for hearing on 06.07.2010 by formulating the following substantial question of law :-

¶19

2

¶20

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶21

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the plaintiff having closed his business during pendency of the suit, his non-residential need projected in the plaint is bonafide?”

¶22

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown in the plaint before the trial Court.]

¶23

2 . The plantiff filed a suit for eviction pleading inter alia that he is the owner and landlord of the shop situated at Medh Market, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, area admeasuring 600 square feet, which was let out to defendant No.1 for nonresidential purpose through defendant No.2, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400/- with tenancy commencing from the first date of the English calender month ending on the last date of the English calender month. Later, the suit accommodation was required by the plaintiff for his bona fide need and since he had no suitable alternative accommodation in the township of Raipur, a registered notice for eviction was served to the defendant/tenant on 16.02.1994 vide Exhibit P-3 for handing over the vacant possession of the suit shop but the defendant/tenant did not deliver the possession of the suit shop, leading to filing of suit by the plaintiff against him.

¶24

3

¶25

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶26

3 . Resisting the suit before the trial Court, the defendant/tenant filed the written statement controverting the averments stating inter alia that the plaintiff does not require the suit shop bonafidely as he has an alternative accommodation in the township of Raipur which fulfills his requirement, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

4 . Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 holding that the suit accommodation is not bonafidely required by the plaintiff for his non-residential purpose.

¶28

5 . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC. Learned first appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007 allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff holding that the suit accommodation is bonafidely required by the plaintiff for his non-residential purpose and that the plaintiff has no other suitable alternative accommodation in the township of Raipur and ultimately, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against which the instant second appeal has been

¶29

4

¶30

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶31

preferred by the defendant in which substantial question of law has been framed and set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

¶32

6 . Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel for the defendant would submit that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has closed his business at Pandri Cloth market, Raipur and his non-residential need projected in the plaint has come to an end and therefore, decree for eviction cannot be passed. As such, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Pariwar Sewa 1 Sanstha v. Padmavati Dixit .

¶33

7 . Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and submit that the said accommodation at Pandri Cloth Market was on tenanted premises and the suit shop in which the plaintiff was carrying out his business was sold by the owner of the said accommodation, therefore, the business was closed and since the suit accommodation at Gandhi

¶34

1 CR No.80 of 2005 dated 20.07.2006.

¶35

5

¶36

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶37

Chowk was better suited for his non-residential purpose, he would need the said accommodation. As such, learned first appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which deserves to be maintained. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma2 and Maganlal v. Nanasaheb3

¶38

8 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶39

9 . It is not in dispute that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is of landlord and tenant. The learned trial Court in its judgment and decree has held that the suit accommodation is not required bonafidely by the plaintiff for his non-residential purpose though he has no alternative suitable accommodation for non-residential purpose in the township of Raipur, which the plaintiff challenged in the first appeal and the first appellate Court clearly held that the accommodation which the plaintiff was having at Pandri Cloth Market was a tenanted accommodation and shop at Gandhi Chowk is a better

¶40

2 (2017) 5 SCC 640

¶41

3 (2008) 13 SCC 758

¶42

6

¶43

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶44

place for his non-residential purpose and, therefore, proceeded to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff, against which this second appeal has been preferred.

¶45

10. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nidhi (supra) may be noticed herein, where it has been held by their Lordships in para 14 & 16 as under :-

¶46

“14. The legislations made for dealing with such landlord-tenant disputes were protenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice the court cannot be overzealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court.

¶47

Ordinarily, the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions.”

¶48

11. Similarly, in the matter of Maganlal (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and held in para 23 as under :-

¶49

7

¶50

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶51

“23. This Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal⁴ held that it is always a prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business, this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad, therefore, it is not a genuine need. Further, it is held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business.”

¶52

12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in this appeal the defendant could not establish that the suit accommodation at Pandri Cloth Market was owned by the plaintiff and he is still in possession of the said accommodation, however, on behalf of the defendant, it has been stated the plaintiff has closed his business at Pandri Cloth market, Raipur and his non-residential need projected in the plaint has come to an end. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has pleaded that suit accommodation at Gandhi Chowk is required bonafidely and there is no non-residential accommodation in his possession in the township of Raipur and the tenanted accommodation at Pandri Cloth Market has already been sold by the owner of that accommodation and, therefore,

¶53

4 (2005) 8 SCC 252

¶54

8

¶55

(SA No. 493 of 2007)

¶56

merely, because the plaintiff has closed his business on account of selling of suit property by its owner, it cannot be held that the plaintiff does not need the suit accommodation for bona fide requirement and the plaintiff is the best judge to decide which accommodation is more useful for his non-residential purpose.

¶57

13. In view of the aforesaid legal analysis, the first appellate Court is absolutely justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court and the substantial question of law framed in this second appeal has been answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

¶58

14. As such, this second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s).

¶59

15. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶60

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶61

@d!t!

M/S Jain Sancheti and Associates and Anr. v. Jasraj Begani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain Sancheti and Associates and Anr. v. Jasraj Begani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramvilas Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shivkumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Ram @ Ganga Singh Saini Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aaram Das Vaishanav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Mirjha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh