SHIV BHAGWAN VIDAY SHANKAR Vs. THAKARAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a shop, situated in the town of Churu which has been decreed by both the courts below.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they are father and son and they purchased the suit shop, situated near Ghantaghar at Churu, for a sum of Rs. 11,000/ - by means of a registered sale deed dated December 23, 1963 from Hariprashad. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that the plaintiffs were carrying on their business on a rented shop, which was comparatively much smaller than the shop in dispute and was situated in a less important locality. The plaintiffs and members of their family desired to shift their existing business to the shop in dispute. The defendant was asked to vacate the shop but as he failed to do so, a notice terminating his tenancy was served on July 9, 1964, and as the defendant failed to vacate the shop inspite of servics of notice upon him, the suit for ejectment on the ground of bonafide and reasonable personal necessity and also on the ground of defaults in payment of rent was filed.

(3.) BOTH the courts below found the issue relating to defaults in payment of rent against the plaintiffs, as the defendent had tendered rent from time to time by money orders which were refused by the the plaintiff. However, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessily, both the courts below found in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff No. 1 had his business in Assam but he desired to start his new business in Churu. According to the trial court, an existing business was not necessary and the necessiiy of the plaintiff for starting a new business could also be held to be reasonable and bonafide, in the circum stances that the plaintiffs had purchased the shop in dispute for carrying on their own business. The first appellate court endorsed the finding arrived at by the trial court and observed that the statements of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 were sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved their bonafide and reasonable need for the suit shop.