FIRM OF MOHANLAL NAROTTAMDAS Vs. BECHARDAS KHUSALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants revision application against a decree of ejectment from the suit premises consisting of one big room and a shed at its back passed by the learned District Judge Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1961. The decree was passed on the finding that the plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use. By this decree the learned District Judge has reversed the decree of dismissal of the plaintiffs suit that was passed by the learned Joint Civil judge (Junior Division) Surat in Regular Civil Suit No. 482 of 1959. The suit was instituted on June 15 1959 The plaintiffs in the suit were the present opponent Bechardas Khushaldas and the opponents mother Bai Mahali since deceased. The defendants in the suit were the present applicant No. 2 (defendant No. 2) Mohanlal Narottamdas and present applicant No. 1 the Firm of Mohanlal Narottamdas in which name the applicant No. 2 has been carrying on the business.

(2.) It appears that the suit of the plaintiffs was that the defendants-tenants who were carrying on the business in the firm name of Mohanlal Narottamdas in Surat were the tenants of a room 12 x 13 and an open space at its back where a temporary shed was constructed on a rental of Rs. 35.00 payable by the month. The room was being used by the defendants for housing their Bhatthis for preparing sweetmeats for their sweetmeat shop. The plaintiffs case was that they required the suit premises for their bona fide and reasonable requirement as alleged in paragraph 4 of their plaint. The plaint allegation in paragraph 4 was that plaintiff No. 1 Bechardas had eight sons of whom three were married and that his family consisted in all of 40 members. The plaintiff No. 1 was a wholesale dealer in fruits and vegetables and he required the godowns for the purpose. He had rented a number of godowns amongst which was one situated in a street known as Rangrej Gali and qua this godown he was under a notice to quit. The plaint averment further was that his sons were able to do business and thereby the plaintiffs (plaintiff No. 1s) business can be expanded. It was also stated in the relevant paragraph 4 of the plaint that in the absence of any vacant accommodation for the sons to start their business the sons were obliged to continue in service and their business talents could not be developed with the result that the family income suffered and there was deficit in meeting the running expenses of the large family. These facts constituted the ground on which the plaintiffs had alleged that their requirement of the suit premises was for the occupation by themselves bona fide and reasonable. The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds and amongst them the main ground was that the requirement of the plaintiffs was not bona fide and reasonable. It was further contended that there was an earlier suit filed in year 1953 by the plaintiffs for eviction against the defendants on the ground of their business and residential requirement of the suit premises which was dismissed and as such the present suit was barred by the principles analogous to res judicata. It was also pleaded that there would be greater hardship caused to the tenants by passing the decree for eviction.

(3.) The learned trial Judge before whom the evidence was recorded negatived the plaintiffs case of bona fide and reasonable requirement. He was of the view that the issue of hardship did not thus arise for his determination. However the learned Judge has observed that if he were to decide it he would have no hesitation in deciding it against the defendants as they had a shed in a house in Sopari Gali where they did run their hearths and that shed would be suitable for running the Bhatthis. The learned Judge however dismissed the suit on his finding about requirement. In reaching this conclusion the learned Judge appears to have considered in paragraphs 9 10 and 11 of his judgment the question of deficit in meeting the family expenses that the plaintiffs family was allegedly suffering from. The learned Judge has found on the evidence of the plaintiffs about the income and expense ratio at that material time that the allegations as regards family deficit were not substantiated. On the question of the bar of res judicata the learned Judge has on an appreciation of the relevant evidence on record found that there was no such bar. The learned Judge has found that in the former 1953 suit the ground for eviction was requirement of the suit premises case the ground was requirement of a godown for development of business as the present income of the plaintiffs was not sufficient to meet the expenses of the plaintiffs family.