Court Civil Judge (J.D.

Taranagar

Case No. Year Date Judgment

22 2012

Dinesh S/o Shri Bhanwarlalji Caste Oswal - Shyamsukha Resident Ward No. 9 Taranagar
District Churu (Rajasthan)
-Wadi / Plaintiff-

Vs

Punamchand s/o Chairulal Caste Minister Leaf Minister Store Near Sabzi Mandi Taranagar
District Churu (Rajasthan)

-Defendant-

Eviction of shop on the basis of all kinds of

evidence regarding the case.

Sir,

The plaint is presented by the plaintiff as under :-

1- That a shop owned by the plaintiff is situated near Sabzi Mandi in Taranagar town,
District Churu, the boundary of the said shop is as given below. This shop was given to the
respondent Poonamchand on monthly rent on 01-04-2002 on the basis of oral lease. The rent was
Rs.350, in the form of rupees three hundred fifty only per month, to be paid on the first of every
month.

Four Side Boundaries of above shop :-

North - common route

South- Shop of Plaintiff which is on rent of Surendra Medical Stores

East - Common Way

West - Other Shops of wadi

2- That according to the oral lease, it was also agreed that the plaintiff can get the shop
vacated whenever he wants by giving seven days notice to the defendant and the defendant will
also be liable to vacate the shop within seven days on such notice.

3- That the defendant has been irregular in paying the rent of the shop since the beginning
of the tenancy, only after repeated demands, he gets the rent deposited by him with great
difficulty. Even before the present suit, the rent has been deposited by the defendant only after
notice has been given and before that the rent has never been paid regularly.

4- That in fact the defendant has bought another shop in front of the suit shop and does
business in the same, for this reason the defendant does not even need the suit shop. Therefore,
the said shop has been kept closed without any reason for a continuous period of more than one
year, he does not do any kind of business etc. in it. The plaintiff is doing computer business in
the name of “Shishu Corporation” in Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh), which wants to establish it
on a large scale in his hometown as well, for which he needs his disputed shop of his ownership
and the nearby shop, so that he can make one of the two shops. By setting up a branch of his
business establishment in his home town also, it is necessary to evict the defendant from the suit
shop due to reasonable bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the plaintiff.

5- That it was stipulated in the oral lease that the suit shop could be vacated at any time by
giving seven days' notice to the defendant. Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, a notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant on 06.02.2012 for a period of 15 days,
clearly terminating the tenancy of the defendant, at the end of the notice period The plaintiff
was informed to take over the possession, but despite receiving the notice by the defendant, the
possession of the suit shop was not handed over to the plaintiff. For this reason, the defendant
has become a trespasser in his rented shop, from which the plaintiff is entitled to receive an
amount of intervening profit equal to the rent till the date of taking over the possession of the
shop. For these reasons, this suit is being presented in the Hon'ble Court for obtaining decree of
eviction of the defendant from the suit shop.

6- That the cause of action is received by the plaintiff from the time the shop was given
on rent on the basis of oral lease. The defendant was given a notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, whose period ended on 28.02.2012 with the completion of tenancy
month, but the defendant did not vacate the premises, therefore, from the date of expiry of the
notice. Only the reason is received. That this plaint is presented within the period of limitation.

7- That the shop in question is situated in Taranagar and the defendant Poonamchand is
also a permanent resident of Taranagar, therefore the matter is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Hon'ble Court and due to the valuation of the suit being Rs.4,200/-, the matter is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.

8- That the suit for eviction be reduced to the amount of one year's rent (350 × 12) i.e.
Rs.4,200/- in the form of four thousand two hundred only and the plaint be made Rs.105/- in
the form of one hundred and five only with court fee is presented.

By presenting the suit on the above grounds, it is requested/prayed that while

accepting the suit, it should be decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as
follows -

(a) The defendant should be ordered to vacate the disputed premises and hand them
over to the plaintiff in good condition

(b) The oral lease between the parties was terminated with effect from notice dated
06.02.2012 served by the plaintiff through his counsel, the period of which expired on
28.02.2012 with the end of the month of rent, after which The defendant has become a
trespasser in the disputed premises. For this reason, from the period of the said notice till the
date of vacating the premises, the plaintiff should be given the mean profit at the rate of
Rs.350/- per month. Additional court fee (if any) shall be paid by the plaintiff as per the order
of the Hon'ble Court,

(c) The cost of the suit and the lawyer's fee should be made available to the plaintiff
from the defendant.

(d) any other relief which is in the interest of the plaintiff and just, or any relief which
may arise in the course of the suit, may be granted,

Applicant

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal

Caste Oswal Shyamsukha Resident Taranagar, District Churu.

Verification

I, Dinesh Kumar S/o Mr. Bhanwarlal, whose signature is given below, have found item
numbers 1 to 5 of the above suit to be true from my personal knowledge and information
obtained from the relevant documents and item number 6 to 8 from the information obtained
from the legal opinion of my advocate and verify to be correct. This attestation was verified
today on 16-04-2012 by getting it written in Churu.

signature verifier