ASHOK Vs. SHAKUNTALA BAI AND SHANTILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I find no merit in this appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC and hence, the appeal has no substance. The appeal is filed by the defendant under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment/decree, dated 6-3-2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barwah, West Nimar, in C. A. No. 17-A of 1999, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 72-A of 1987, decided by Civil Judge, Class I, Barwah, on 23-8-1999.

(2.) TWO Courts have held against the appellant (defendant) who is admittedly the tenant of the suit accommodation that the need set up by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) for residence of her son - Umesh as also for doing business is genuine and bona fide and secondly, plaintiff does not have any other reasonable and alternative suitable accommodation of her own in city where she can accomplish her need, i. e. , need of her son except in the suit house. It is this finding of concurrence rendered by the two Courts in an eviction suit which is sought to be assailed by the defendant/tenant in this appeal.

(3.) IT is now a too well settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in series of cases and which is being consistently followed by the High Courts as law laid down under Article 141 of Constitution of India that a question of bona fide need set up by the plaintiff (landlord) whether for residential purpose or non-residential, is a question of fact. It is only when the finding so recorded on this issue is found to be de hors the pleading or against the evidence led or is based on no evidence, or is against the statutory requirement of law [12 (1) (f) of the Act], or it is so bad that no judicial man can ever reach to its conclusion, then such finding is amenable to interference in second appeal. When I examine the facts of this case keeping in view these parameters then I am unable to notice any such infirmity in the impugned judgment and hence, it deserves to be upheld.