Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30) That the said Pagri amount of Rs. 5000/- now equals Rs. 1,53,40,000/-, which is equivalent to the present cost of the tenanted shop and thus the petitioner cannot seek their eviction unless the said amount is repaid in its present value ;

31) That another shop in the suit property was also let out to their father in 1967 by the petitioner's father in law on Pagri amount of Rs. 75,000/- which was more than the cost of the said shop at that time whereby a less rate of rent was fixed, which has been now enhanced to Rs. 150/-per month but the same is not accepted by the petitioner's husband ;

In my considered opinion, the bar of Order 2 rule 2 CPC is not applicable qua the present petition. It has been admitted by the respondents that the separate tenancies were created in favour of their father by the father in law of the petitioner qua the tenanted shop and the other adjoining shop which is the subject matter of EP no. 53/12. They have admitted in their leave to defend that the tenancy with regard to the tenanted shop was created in favour of their father in 1954 on payment of Pagri amount of Rs. 5000/-. Likewise they have also admitted that a separate tenancy with regard to the adjoining shop, which is the subject matter of EP no. 53/12, was created in favour of their father in 1967 on payment of Pagri amount of Rs. 75,000/-. Meaning thereby separate tenancies were created with regard to these two shops at different points of time and thus cause of action qua their tenancies will always be different whereby separate eviction petitions even on the same ground of bona fide requirements of these shops are maintainable, even if the bona fide requirement of the petitioner or any of her dependents qua one of these shops was available at the time of the filing of the first eviction petition. Since the tenancies of both these shops are separate, the bar of Order 2 rule 2 CPC will not apply merely because the tenants in respect thereof happens to be common. The factum of separate tenancies in respect of these two shops would always give rise to separate causes of action qua the recovery of their respective possession.

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.

27. The respondents have alleged that their father had taken the tenanted 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 equals Rs. 1,53,40,000/-, which corresponds to the present cost of the (Page No. 19 of 24) {Smt. Sharda Rani Vs. Joginder Pal & Ors. (E-94/12)} tenanted shop whereby the petitioner cannot seek their eviction unless the said Pagri amount 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.