SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. SURYA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sridungargarh.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that the landlord preferred a suit for eviction against the appellant on the ground of default and bonafide necessity. As per the plaintiff he is in need of premises as he want to shift his business from Dinhata (West Bengal) to his native town Sridungargarh. Such shift as per the plaintiff was desired due to naxalite movements existing at Dinhata. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record gave a finding of fact that need of the premises as claimed by the landlord is bonafide and as such he is entitled for getting a decree for eviction of the tenant from rented premises.

(3.) The first appellate court considered the judgment passed by the trial court and thoroughly examined the evidence available on record and affirmed the finding of fact. An application is preferred by the appellant as per provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for taking certain documents on record with a view to establish that bonafide need as claimed has been extinguished. The application pertains to placement of certain electricity consumption bills relating to the plaintiff's house and on basis of that tenant want to establish that the landlord is not residing at Sridungargarh but is at Dinhata.