MANAKCHAND Vs. MAGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff land -lord's second appeal from the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Bikaner for arrears of rent and ejectment. Arrears of rent are not in dispute and the question involved for decision is regarding ejectment. The subject -matter of dispute is a shop situated in the town Churu. Tenancy is admitted by the defendant -respondent. The suit for ejectment was based on two grounds viz:

(2.) SO far as the question of personal necessity is concerned, admittedly the re is the lone statement of the plaintiff. He has stated that he requires the shop in question to do Sharafi business and also for dealing in jewellery. The learned first appellate court did not believe the plaintiff's statement, firstly because the alleged necessity for the shop for doing sharafi business was rot alleged in the plaint. It also found that the plaintiff had never carried on such business at all in the past and had not started the business upto the date of the recording his evidence. On going through the statement of the plaintiff Manak Chand I further find that he had not disclosed the alleged necessity for the shop for Sharafi business in his examination -in -chief and contented himself by merely stating that he requires the shop for his own use. It is only in the course of cross -examination that he has disclosed that he wanted to start Sharafi business in the shop in dispute. Admittedly, he has no experience either of Sharafi business or of the business of jewellery. In these circumstances the first appellate court was, in my opinion, right in not accepting the plaintiff's case regarding his alleged personal necessity for the shop in question.

(3.) IN the result, I do not see any force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it. But in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.