JAISSARAM Vs. SOHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE points in controversy in these two appeals by the defendant-tenants are exactly identical. THE land-lord plaintiff-respondent is the same in both the cases though the tenants are different. In the circumstances it would be convenient to dispose of both these appeals by single judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff also urged that the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge regarding the necessity for the shops in question is a finding of fact and should not be interfered with in second appeal. In the first instance the learned District Judge has not given a finding in any of the two cases that both shops are required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for his business. In the second place whether on the facts proved the requirement of the landlord is bonafide and reasonable is a finding of a mixed question of fact and law, and, therefore, in an appropriate case this court is competent to go into this question in second appeal. At this stage I must also observe that the observation of the learned District Judge in Jaissaram's case that the trial court was not at all entitled to import the knowledge of the one case into other is not correct. The trial court was seized of both the cases instituted by the same landlord and ejectment was sought from the two shops in both the cases on the ground that both the shops were required by the plaintiff for his reasonable necessity. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that each case should have been decided completely divorced of the facts of the other, and decree should have been granted for ejectment in each case on the ground that the shop was reasonably required by the plaintiff for his business is, in my opinion, not correct. If that principle were accepted it would mean that the landlord owning ten shops might institute ten suits against all the tenants on the ground that a shop was required by him for his business and on the reasoning submitted by the learned counsel the Court would be bound to decree all the suits with the result that even though the landlord's requirement may be for one shop only he may get the tenants from all the ten shops evicted. Such a position, would be reductio-ad-absurdum and defeat the provisions and the objects of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950.