OM PRAKASH BHATI Vs. LRS OF HAR KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant Om Prakash Bhatt being aggrieved by the decree of first appellate Court dated 6.10.2010 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff landlord No. 48/2006 on the ground of bona fide necessity of grand-children of landlady. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff landlady on 1.9.2006 while dismissing the Civil Suit No. 56/2004 - Harkanwar vs. Om Prakash. Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alkesh Agarwal appearing for the appellant-defendant vehemently submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2003 for the alleged need of the grand-children who were only the students of 11th and 12th standard at that time and whereas two shops in question each measuring 9 x 20 ft. total 18 x 20 ft. were given on rent to the defendant - tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- since 1.6.1993. He submitted that the alleged ground of bona fide necessity of landlady for her grand children was not rightly believed by the learned trial. Court, which dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Since the said need was admittedly only a future and probable need, whereas it is well settled that bona fide need of landlord should exists on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the alleged need that since her grand children are doing Computer course and therefore, need shown that the suit premises which is situated near Pal Balaji Temple at Pal Road, a prominent and busy road of Jodhpur for starting their computer business, was not genuine and bona fide need and mere whims and desire of landlord cannot furnish a valid ground for passing eviction decree. He submitted that findings of first appellate Court are perverse and baseless. The youngest daughter Dipika was doing Dental course, whereas her need for computer business was pleaded. Their father Dr. Har Govind, whose need after retirement after 2 years was shown, did not even appear in Court for cross-examination. He relied upon several case-laws, which would be referred to herein, a little later.

(2.) By moving an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. before this Court on 6.12.2010, which has been replied by the plaintiff - landlord and both the parties by producing photographs of the site in question have tried to bring on record the additional facts that alternative accommodation is available to the landlord, whereas the landlord has tried to establish that the tenant has his own other business accommodation/shops where he is carrying on the business of selling building materials which business he is carrying on in the disputed premises also.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant Mr. R.R. Nagori, Sr. Advocate therefore, vehemently submitted that the learned first appellate Court has grossly erred in reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court and passing a decree for eviction on the alleged ground of bona fide need of the landlord and the said judgment deserves to be set aside. He has submitted that the substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal for determination by this Court.