GOVINDRAM Vs. SUSHILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the appellants two main contentions were raised. Firstly that the need of Purshottam for wholesale business or semi -wholesale business in cloth was not really proved and the Courts below were wrong in holding so and secondly that when the tenant pleaded in the written -statement that in the year 1974 the landlord had obtained vacant possession of one room on first floor from M/s Namrata Textiles, his need was satisfied as the suit was filed on 22.8.1973. It was contended that the finding of bone fide need is vitiated because it was not arrived at by considering all aspects objectively and availability of alternate accommodation was not explained by the landlord by pleading its unsuitability.

(2.) COMING to the first contention, the learned counsel for the appellants took me through the evidence of all the three witnesses of the plaintiff and that of tenant Brijmohan which related to the question of bona fide requirement. All this evidence was read verbatim in second appeal. This Court thought that even in second appeal the Court should be vigilant to see that a balance should be struck between the protection granted to the tenant under the Act and the right of the landlord to get the tenanted premises vacated on the ground under section 12 (1) (f) of the Act in the present case. The contention about non - objective conclusion as to proof of bona fide requirement has absolutely no merit. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court has considered in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment all the material factors stated above which, go into the making of objective proof of bona fide requirement. It would be sheer repetition if all those factors are to be recapitulated over again in detail. Small discrepancies in evidence of Purshottam and Phoolchand as to who actually prepares bills in the cloth business at Biaora are really not consequential.

(3.) THE contention on behalf of the appellants that wholesale business would be carried on in the room on the first floor vacated by M/s Namrata Textiles because in such business goods are not to be stored nor displayed but the sale is by sample has no force because it is not the case of the landlord at all that Purshottam wanted to do wholesale business. The case of the plaintiff right from the inception in plaint is to start semi - wholesale business. It is in the evidence of both plaintiff as well as the witness of defendant Laxminarayan in para 7 that in whole salt; business, cloth bails are sold while in semi - wholesale business cloth bails are opened and then pieces of certain length (Thaan) are sold. This would clearly demonstrate that in semi -wholesale business of cloth goods will have to be stored and displayed and it was in this light that both Courts below and particularly the first appellate Court in para 15 of its judgment after considering the structural features of the room on the first floor came to the conclusion that such room would be unsuitable for semi -wholesale business in choth.