Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28) That the aforesaid Pagri amount now is equivalent to the present cost of the tenanted premises and thus the petitioner cannot seek their eviction unless the said amount is repaid in its present value ;

29) That the petitioner's father in law also let out the adjoining shop in 1954 to their father after accepting a Pagri amount of Rs. 5000/- wherefrom the respondents are conducting the same nature of business as that of petitioner's husband and therefore because of the professional rivalry the present petition has been filed ;

Moreover when the respondents themselves are relying upon numerous Photostat documents, it does not lie in their mouth to say that their Photostat documents be considered, but, not that of the petitioner.
Hence the aforesaid objection of the respondents falls flat on grounds.

25. The respondents have alleged that their father had taken the tenanted premises on rent in 1967 after giving a Pagri amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the father in law of the petitioner. They have alleged that said Pagri amount was equivalent to the cost of the said shop at that time whereby a lesser monthly rent was thus fixed. They have alleged that since this Pagri amount corresponds to the cost of the tenanted premises, the petitioner cannot seek their eviction unless the same in its present value is repaid to them.

Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents that their father had ever paid any such Pagri amount to the father in law of the petitioner. Hence they have failed to establish the payment of this Pagri amount.

Even if it is assumed to be true that this Pagri amount was ever paid, then also it does not lie in their mouth to say that their eviction cannot be sought without the repayment of this Pagri amount in its present value. The said Pagri amount in normal legal language is to be treated as a lease amount, which does not change the nature of the status of the respondent's father or of the respondents as that of tenant. If any such amount was in fact ever paid, the proper remedy available with the respondents is to file a civil suit for its recovery instead of seeking the same in the present case.

Hence the aforesaid plea of the respondents fails to impress this Court.

26. The respondents have alleged that their father had also taken the adjoining shop on rent in 1954 after giving a Pagri amount of Rs. 5000/- to the father in law of the petitioner. They have alleged that said Pagri amount now corresponds to the present cost of the tenanted premises whereby the petitioner cannot seek their eviction unless the said Pagri amount in its present value is repaid to them. They have also alleged that the petitioner never gave them any notice of attornment after acquiring the ownership of this adjoining shop on the death of her mother in law.