RAM LAL Vs. DAYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant- tenant (defendant in suit for eviction) in his usual style of flair with some stubbornness submits that the case is only listed on application for preponing the date to which he does not object and when the matter was preponeded for today itself, he was asked to address the Court for admission / hearing of the case, he refused to do so and informed the Court that the appeal has already been admitted on 24.8.2009. Therefore, without assistance from the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent was asked to go through the impugned judgments.

(2.) Both the learned courts below have concurrently given the findings of fact as to bonafide necessity of the respondent- plaintiff about the suit premises in an eviction suit filed by him in Rent Control law.

(3.) Both the Courts below have held on the basis of evidence that the suit premises, a residential house situated at Sadul Colony, Bikaner of two rooms were given on rent to the appellant-defendant in which he started a shop of selling milk. Since the plaintiff- respondent was in Government service, after his retirement, he needed these premises for the bonafide need of his wife, who wanted to start a small school for small children in the said suit premises.