(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the appellate judgment dated 18.11.87 in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/84 passed by II Addl. Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Raigarh which was the appeal by the respondent/defendant, whereby the respondent's plea against trial Court decree of eviction against him was accepted and the judgment and decree of eviction were reversed. The present appellant in second appeal is the landlord/plaintiff.
(2.) THE disputed premises is non-residential premises let out by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant has pleaded that he needs this premises for running a hotel business of his son Gurcharan and he has no other premises to fulfil that need. The suit was filed as far back as on 9.3.77. It was also alleged by him that an adjoining shop was let out to one Sunderlal and a similar suit against him for similar requirement had been filed, that the son of the plaintiff would run his hotel business in these shops by removing the intervening wall. In any case it was pleaded that for the time being he can run his business in one shop also. That plea was added by amendment in 1984.
(3.) THE trial Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff and ordered eviction of the defendant but the appellate Court reversed that judgment holding that there was no real need of the plaintiff or his son. It was found that similar plea against the neighbouring shop of Sunderlal had failed in suit No. 6-A/83 and the finding was upheld till second appeal by the High Court in S.A. No. 330/85 decided on 16.8.89. Thus it was held that the alleged need for using that premises for hotel was found not real and the High Court upheld that finding. The first appellate Court noticed in the present case that in case of Sunderlal the plaintiff had earlier filed suit on the ground of need for Maniyari business. That suit was filed in 1971 and the dismissal was confirmed till second appeal in the High Court. It was thereafter that the plaintiff filed against Sunderlal another suit i.e. 6-A/83 seeking eviction on the ground of requirement for the son for hotel business, which too failed. Thus the first appellate Court was of the view that the ground regarding running the hotel in the both shops was frustrated and fell down. It was further noticed that first floor portion above the present disputed premises was rented with one Rao who had vacated that premises. He was running an office or shop there. The plaintiff could have used that portion for running hotel by his son but he did not do so.