ANANDILAL Vs. SOHANDAS AND BEHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points in controversy in these two appeals by the defendant-tenants are exactly indentical. The landlord 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 a single judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Sohandas purchased two shops from one Ballabhdas on 25.10.1961 for a sum of Rs. 16,999/-. One of these shops was occupied by tenant Jaisaram and the other shop was occupied by tenant Anandilal. After having purchased both these shops, the plaintiff served notices of ejectment on each of the two tenants and called upon them to vacate the shops on the ground that the same were required for reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff, who wanted to run a book stall and stationery mart in these shops. The suit against Jaisaram was instituted on 31.1.1962 and was registered as suit No. 85/1962 and the suit against Anandilal was instituted after about a week on 8.2.1962 and was registered as suit No. 95 of 1962.

(3.) Separate evidence was recorded in both the cases and the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City decreed the suit against Anandilal on the ground that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his reasonable and bonafide personal requirement for the shop. On the same day subsequently he decided the suit against Jaisram and held that the plaintiff's requirement for one shop was undoubtedly established. He further observed that since the plaintiff's suit for possession of one shop had been decreed against Anandilal, no decree for ejectment could be passed against the other tenant Jaisaram as the plaintiff had failed to establish his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity for both the shops. To be more precise the finding of the learned trial Court in Jaisaram's case was that the plaintiff's demand for two shops was unreasonable, and he was entitled to get possession of one shop. Thus Jaisaram escaped ejectment on the simple ground that the plaintiff's suit against Anandilal had been decreed prior to the announcement of the judgment in his case.