DHARAM CHAND Vs. KARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal instituted by the defendant arises out of a suit for eviction from a shop with corridor situated at Munshi Bazar Alwar. The plaintiff sought for the decree of eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the premises. Out of the five issues that were framed by the learned trial court issues No. 2 and 3 as regards to reasonable and bonafide necessity of the shop and comparative hardship of the parties were the core issues. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties the learned trial court decreed the suit. Thereafter the appellate court framed yet another issue as regard to `partial eviction' of the premises and remanded the matter with a direction to the trial court to decide the issue within six months. The trial court decided the issue against the defendant. Learned appellate court vide its decree and judgment dated August 13, 1998 confirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. After unsuccessful first appeal the defendant has now preferred the instant second appeal.

(2.) IN the plaint filed by the plaintiff on April 22, 1982 it was averred that the shop was required reasonable and bonafide for the business of plaintiff's son Pradeep Kumar. The decree was sought in view of cl. (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Rajas- than Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 1950 Act ). Both the courts below appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and observed that the shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff. The issues as regards to comparative hardship and partial eviction were considered at length and decided agai- nst the defendant. Finding in regard to reasonable and bonafide necessity of the shop is essentially a finding of fact. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam's case (1), propounded that concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers u/s. 100 CPC.

(3.) I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal, it stands dismissed summarily. .