RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. JAMNA DAS KOTEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal, directed against order of Rajasthan High court in proceedings arising out of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, is if the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction as a second appellate court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and the order of eviction would result in greater hardship to the tenant.

(2.) Basis for eviction was the need of the landlord, to shift his electrical shop from rented premises to his own, mainly, for two reasons, one, that he was paying more rent and other that the shop was more suitable as principal Phillips dealer of electric goods were in that locality. Both were negatived by the trial court and appellate court as landlord was a wealthy businessman owning number of shops and the difference In rent could not affect him. Further he was not under threat of eviction. And the market where he was carrying on business had number of shops of electrical goods from where landlord returned highest turnover in the whole of Rajasthan in some years. It was also found that the tenant too has a flourishing business of publishing and sale of books which he was running from two adjoining shops one of which was in dispute. But if the suit was decreed it would result in crippling his business.

(3.) In recording these findings the two courts below adverted to evidence on record. No material evidence was ignored nor any was misread. Even the High court could not point out any, yet it proceeded to appreciate the evidence as legal approach adopted by the first appellate court, in applying more stringent standard than was permissible was faulty. For this reliance was placed on observations that the need must be "backed by extreme want or destitution" or the landlord should have "pressing necessity". But these stray observations have been picked up from the legal position summarised by the first appellate court as under: