CHANCHAL MAL Vs. PANNALAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaur dated Dec. 2, 1971 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Nagaur and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a shop situated in the town of Nagaur on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiffs for the suit shop. The trial court held that the plaintiff was unable to establish his reasonable and bona fide necessity for the shop in dispute, while the first appellate court reversing the finding arrived at by the trial court held that the personal necessity of the plaintiff-landlord was proved and passed a decree for ejectment.

(2.) During the pendency of the second appeal in this court an additional issue in respect of comparative hardship was framed by this Court by its order dated April 25, 1979, and the same was remitted to the first appellate court for trial. The Civil Judge, Nagaur has sent the record back to this Court along with the evidence of both the parties recorded by him in respect of the additional issue regarding comparative hardship and has also sent his finding dated Sept. 26, 1980 in respect of the said additional issue. According to the finding arrived at by the first appellate court greater hardship would be caused in the present case by passing a decree for ejectment than by refusing to pass it. After the receipt of the finding of the first appellate court regarding the additional issue, the appeal has now been listed for hearing.

(3.) The plaintiffs, case in respect of their bona fide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises was that Manak Chand plaintiff carried on cloth business in the shop in dispute for about 16 years but then he had gone out and now that he was not keeping good health he wanted to return and reside at Nagaur and that his son Pannalal would do 'sarrafa' and cloth business, for which the shop in dispute was required. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claim in respect of the alleged requirement for the suit shop and asserted that the plaintiff Pannalal was already carrying on 'kirana' business in a rented shop in Mohan Market and further that there is a shop belonging to the plaintiffs available for use by them under the house of Ratanlal in 'Danti Bazar'. Thus according to the defendants the alleged requirement of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit shop was neither reasonable nor bona fide, but the intention of the plaintiffs was merely to raise the rent. The original plaintiff Manakchand expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on the record. After a trial, as mentioned earlier, the trial court dismissed the suit while the first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.