ABDUL RAHIM Vs. ASGAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant under section 100 of Code of Civil procedure, 1973 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Regular Civil Appeal N0.6 -A/2011 dated 26.11.2011, by which the appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class -I Ujjain in Civil Suit No.25 -A/09 decided on 21.1.2011.

(2.) The record of the case reflects that the plaintiff is the owner of House No. 104 Kamri Marg, Ujjain and the defendant is a tenant in respect of a shop located at the ground floor of the house in question. It is also not in dispute that the shop in question was given on a monthly rent of Rs.550/ -. It is also not in dispute that the suit was filed against the present appellant for eviction and various grounds were raised by the plaintiff in respect of eviction. It was categorically pleaded in the civil suit that the shop in question is required on account of bona fide need of the plaintiffs son as he wants to start his own business and he has also attained majority. Witnesses were examined by the trial Court and based upon the statement of witnesses, it was established that the son of the plaintiff has attained majority and in order to start his business, he is in need of the premises. Not only this, PW 1 Asgar Ali has categorically stated that the plaintiff's son Kayed Johar has attained majority, he is married and in order to earn his livelihood he wants to start his own business of selling cloth from the premises in question. The other witnesses namely Sabbir Husain (PW3), Kayed Johar (P -2) and Tayyawali (PW 4) have categorically stated that Kayed Johar wants to start his own business and at present there is no other place except the place in question from where Kayed Johar wants to start his business, though the defence was taken by the defendant stating in the written statement that son of the plaintiff can very well to continue his business activity with his father, but the trial Court relying upon the large number of witnesses and the facts on record has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff's son is certainly in need of the premises in question and on account of bona fide need, the suit has been decreed. The first appellate Court after appreciating the facts, evidence as well as law on the subject has declined to interfere with the judgment and decree dated 21.1.11, meaning thereby there are concurrent findings of fact on record establishing the bona fide need.

(3.) This Court is of the considered opinion that in light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the aforesaid case, the question of interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The appeal is dismissed summarily.