BALDEV RAI Vs. BHIM SAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset learned counsel for the respondent made a prayer that there was previous judgment between the parties in Eviction Petition No. 486 of 10.08.2006 titled as Baldev Rai v. Bhim Sain decided on 19.11.2008 and that judgment would be necessary to be placed on the record by way of additional evidence. Copy of the said judgment has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner who states that he has no objection if this document is now taken on record by way of additional evidence. In the circumstances the plea is allowed and the true copy of the judgment is taken on record as Ex. ZZ.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a retired Government servant who filed the present eviction petition for the ejectment of the respondent from his shop on the ground of his personal necessity. Both the Courts found that the petitioner and his wife were retired Government servants who were earning handsome pension and had got substantial amount apart therefrom by way of retirement benefits and both their children were well settled. On these facts the Courts below came to the conclusion that it was unlikely that the petitioner would start a shop and, therefore, dismissed the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely the fact that the petitioner is comfortably off can be no ground to come to the conclusion that he does not need the shop for his bona fide use. As per him some times a person needs an occupation not only for earning money but to occupy his time and merely lack of requirement of money can never be taken to be proof of the fact that a person does not want to work any more. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that conduct of the petitioner can well be gauged from the judgment Ex. ZZ. That was a case where the petitioner had earlier filed a petition for ejectment of the present respondent from the Chaubara on the top of the shop in question on the ground of personal necessity which was dismissed by the Rent Controller by holding that the petitioner had not disclosed that he had a residential house in Kotkapura. As per learned counsel for the respondent this is a good ground to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is lying on this occasion also.