KHUBCHANDANI MEHERCHAND Vs. HIRALAL DAYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. The respondent plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 85 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Visavadar to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground that he required the suit premises for his bona fide and reasonable i. e. It was the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit premised from the auction purchaser by a registered sale deed dated September 19 1962 for Rs. 18000/that he had a large family and hence he purchased the suit premises for his personal occupation. The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his personal use and greater hardship would be caused to him if a decree of eviction was to be passed against him. In the trial Court non the basis of the pleadings of the parties an issue was raised whether the suit was maintainable under sec. 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1954 and the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court therefore did not record its findings on various other issues including the one relating to reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1964 in the Court of the Assistant Judge Porbandar. The learned Assistant Judge held that the suit was maintainable that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bona fide and reasonable use and directed the defendant to give peaceful and vacant possession of a portion of the suit premises. It is against this judgment and decree that the original defendant has filed this appeal in this Court.

(2.) Mr. Mehta appearing for the appellant contended that the finding of the learned appellate Judge that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal use was the result of his erroneous approach in law as well as in fact and was not supported by any evidence on record. The learned appellate Judge while considering the issue of bona fide and reasonable requirement has observed as under :- The plaintiff was residing in a rented house belonging to Hasmukhlal Kantilal and managed by his uncle Trambaklal Choksi Ex. 25. He was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 25/for the same as against Rs. 20/realised by him from the defendant. The plaintiff was a telephone controller in the Railways and was transferred from Junagadh to Bhavnagar some six months back. Yet his two sons were residing with their families in Junagadh. One of them was a municipal servant and other a railway servant.

(3.) Mr. Sompura relied on the judgment of Miabhoy J. (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 380 of 1960 decided on December 12 1964 wherein the learned Judge has observed as under :-