HAR SUKH RAI Vs. SHIV SARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for rent and eviction. The same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (1), Jaipur City, though it was decreed by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop situated in Tripoliya Bazar, Jaipur. One Kalyan son of Narain Mahajan Agrawal was the owner of the shop and the defendants (respondents) were tenants at Rs. 30/- p. m. vide rent note dated 1-9-45 in the suit shop. THE suit shop was purchased from said Kalyan by the appellants on 7-12-49 for a consideration of Rs. 7,999/-, and the respondents were the tenants to the appellants. A suit was filed for eviction against the respondents by the appellants (plaintiffs) on July 8, 1957 on the ground that Ratanlal son of Kapurchand plaintiff-appellant has left studying and was without any work, and, therefore, the suit shop was required reasonably and bonafide for the business of said Ratanlal. THE suit was contested by the respondent, who denied the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit shop for Ratanlal and pleaded that Ratanlal was already doing business with the appellants in other shops. It was further pleaded that the respondents were member of a Joint Hindu Family, and they along with other brother Jagdish Narain were carrying on business in the suit shop, but differences arose and another shop was purchased in Tripoliya Bazar. Partition took place and Harkaran Dass was carrying on business in that shop. So far as respondent (1) Shiv Saran Das is concerned, he had no concern with the shop, which was purchased, and was carrying on a separate business in the suit shop. THE defendant further pleaded that plaintiff (2) Kapurchand was the owner of a shop in Chandpol Bazar in which business of Harsukh Rai and Chandmal was being carried on, but that shop was vacated. If the suit shop was reasonably and bonafide required, Ratanlal could have started business in that shop. According to the defendants, the appellant has purchased the land in the name of their wives and constructed Ashoka Hotel near Railway Station, and Ratan Lal son of Kapurchand has taken the Ashoka Hotel on lease and had also obtained a licence from the Municipal Council, Jaipur to run the hotel and the shops in the ground floor of the building of Ashoka Hotel were let out during the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, and, therefore, Ratanlal was not in a genuine need of the suit shop for his business. THE learned trial Court on May 19, 1958 framed issues which were amended vide order dated 4-10-1960. THE trial Court decreed the suit of the appellants under its judgment and decree dated 23-12-1963. THE respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which, in due course of time, was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge (1), Jaipur City, who, reversing the finding of the trial court, dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 19-5-68. A second appeal was filed in this Court by the plaintiffs, and when the appeal was pending the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, which came into force with effect from 29-9-75, and was later on replaced by an Act. In view of section 14 (2) of the Act, as it stood after the amendment, this Court framed an additional issue on the comparative hardship of the parties and remitted it under Order 41 rule, 25, C. P. C. to the trial Court for trial. THE learned trial Court recorded the evidence for the parties on the additional issue and remitted its finding vide its order dated 20-3-80. THE additional issue was decided against the plaintiffs and for the defendants. Objections have been filed against the finding of the trial court on the additional issue on behalf of the plaintiff appellants.

(3.) THEREFORE, even if one of the circumstances, which weighed with the appellate court in holding that the suit shop is not reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiffs for Ratan Lal is excluded, there is so much overwhelming evidence and circumstances in the case which have been taken into consideration by the appellate court on which the finding can be recorded and has been recorded. THEREFORE, it does not appear to be such a case in which it can be said that the finding is arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. Mr. Agrawal has referred to Mst. Bega Begum vs. Abdul Ahad Khan. (2) in which the meaning of reasonable requirement has been explained. But, that ruling will not apply to the facts of the instant court. The court has to determine the truth of the assertion of the plaintiff and also whether the need is bona fide and the test to be applied is an objective and not a subjective one. I am of the opinion that it is a case in which the finding of fact arrived at by the learned appellate court does not call for any interference. In the result, I do not find any force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. .