Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Divisional Manager vs Ajmer Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Cinema

Judgment

1. National Textiles Corporation Ltd. Showroom, Apna Bazar Super Market Parisar, Cinema Road, Padav, Ajmer, Through Its Manager

2. National Textiles Corporation Ltd., Mangal Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Divisional Manager ----Respondents For National Textiles Corporation Ltd. For Ajmer Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited

: Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. : Mr. Mohd. Adil, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 11 /07/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (2 of 7) [CSA-227/2016] With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and both the appeals are decided by this common judgment. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated

20.01.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Ajmer (for short ‘the first appellate Court’), whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal No. 94/2011 (91/2007, 32/2007, 77/2008) filed by Ajmer Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited and the appeal No. 95/2011 (81/2007, 31/2007, 76/2008) filed by the National Textiles Corporation Ltd. & Anr. and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) First Class No. 1, Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 107/2002 (42/2001), by which the trial Court while partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-Ajmer Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited (for short 'the plaintiff- Bhandar') under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, directed the defendants- National Textiles Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the defendants-Textile Corporation') to provide 200 sq. ft. area in the rented premises to the Bhandar, in which Bhandar as per its choice could get it partitioned at its own expense for the purpose of setting up its office or to carry out other commercial activities. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Bhandar filed a civil suit under Order VII Rule 1 CPC for eviction, possession and mesne profit against the defendants-Textile Corporation on the ground of bonafide necessity and material alteration. Plaintiff- Bhandar in its plaint mentioned that plaintiff is a registered society under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and is indulged in the business of sale and purchase of various items and goods. The [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (3 of 7) [CSA-227/2016] suit property was let out to the defendants-Textile Corporation at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,350/- on oral tenancy. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff-Bhandar has a bonafide necessity of the suit property, to enhance its business, but, due to insufficient space it is facing difficulty. Plaintiff-Bhandar had no godown or any suitable place to keep its record. Plaintiff-Bhandar also does not have a place for its office. As such, it is using the basement of the suit property as its office due to insufficiency of space. Plaintiff- Bhandar also wanted to set up a gas booking counter and install four computers in its office, but due to shortage of space only two were installed. Plaintiff-Bhandar had no other place to satisfy its need. Defendants-Textile Corporation would get another premises for running their business. So, comparative hardship lies in favour of the plaintiff-Bhandar. Defendants-Textile Corporation made material alterations in the disputed property without permission of the plaintiff-Bhandar. Defendants-Textile Corporation closed the shutter and windows on the southern wall of the suit property without permission of the plaintiff-Bhandar. So, value of the disputed property was diminished. Defendants-Textile Corporation filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and mentioned that plaintiff-Bhandar did not have bonafide necessity of the suit property. Plaintiff-Bhandar has not increased its business. Plaintiff- Society has alternative accommodation in Padav, Ajmer and has various other premises to satisfy its need. Defendants-Textile Corporation did not materially alter the disputed premises. There was no door or window on the southern wall of the suit property. So, suit filed by the plaintiff-Bhandar be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (4 of 7) [CSA-227/2016] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the property as described in para No. 3 of the plaint, vacated from the defendant for its reasonable and bonafide necessity?

2. Whether on account of partial eviction from the property in question, the needs of the plaintiff could not be satisfied?

3. Whether on account of not evicting, the property in question there shall be more comparative hardship and inconvenience to the plaintiff?

4. Whether on account of permanent construction in the property, the defendants has materially changed the suit property, as a result of which, the defendants is liable to be evicted?

5. Relief? To prove its case the plaintiff-Bhandar examined PW-1-Prem Singh Parihar and PW-2 Mahesh Kumar and to prove their case, defendants-Textile Corporation got examined Anand Kumar Saxena as DW-1 and Amar Singh as DW-2. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Bhandar and directed defendants-Textile Corporation to provide 200 sq. ft. area as per its choice in the rented premises to the plaintiff-Bhandar, wherein the plaintiff-Bhandar could get partitioned at its own expense for the purpose of setting up its office or to carry out other commercial activities. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

02.03.2007, plaintiff-Bhandar as well as defendants-Textile Corporation challenged the said judgment and decree dated [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (5 of 7) [CSA-227/2016]

02.03.2007 passed by the trial Court by way of appeals before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2016 dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff-Bhandar as well as defendants-Textile Corporation and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the defendants-Textile Corporation-Mr. Yash Sharma submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in partly decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal No. 95/2011 (81/2007, 31/2007, 76/2008) filed by the defendants-Textile Corporation. Both the courts had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the defendants-Textile Corporation further submits that plaintiff-Bhandar failed to prove its bonafide necessity with regard to suit property. Plaintiff- Bhandar has other properties to satisfy their need. Plaintiff witness PW-1-Prem Singh Parihar in his evidence admitted that the map of the constructed area was available to them but he had not produced the document before the trial Court. Defendants-Textile Corporation had required entire disputed property for their business. So, the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bhandar-Mr. Mohd. Adil has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants-Textile Corporation-Mr. Yash Sharma and submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in partly decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal No. [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (6 of 7) [CSA-227/2016] 94/2011 (91/2007, 32/2007, 77/2008) filed by the defendants- Textile Corporation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bhandar further submits that the plaintiff's witness clearly proved the bonafide need with regard to disputed premises of the plaintiff-Bhandar. Partial eviction does not satisfy their need. Plaintiff-Bhandar requires disputed property for maintaining their records. Plaintiff-Bhandar also wanted to install computers in the office. Plaintiff-Bhandar had no sufficient property to satisfy its need. Defendants-Textile Corporation could take other accommodation for their business. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bhandar also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in deciding the issue of material alteration against the plaintiff-Bhandar. Plaintiff-Bhandar by way of evidence proved that defendants-Textile Corporation had closed the door as well as windows of the disputed premises. So, finding of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court with regard to material alteration deserves to be set aside. So, the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007 passed by the trial Court with regard to partial eviction be set aside and eviction decree for the whole disputed property be passed and the appeal be admitted on the substantial question of law as framed in the memo of appeal. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants-Textile Corporation as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bhandar. The trial Court as well as first appellate Court while considering the bonafide need of the plaintiff-Bhandar elaborately discussed and decided the issue of partial eviction and rightly [2025:RJ-JP:25511] (7 of 7) [CSA-227/2016] came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-Bhandar need would be satisfied by a partial eviction. The trial Court also rightly came to the conclusion that defendants-Textile Corporation had not material altered the disputed premises. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeals. So, the present appeals filed by the plaintiff-Bhandar as well as defendants-Textile Corporation being bereft of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Tahir/68-69 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J