BALRAM Vs. MANOHARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated May 8, 1991 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Udaipur City (North) dated September 29, 1986, decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant -appellant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the same has been mis -read. This is not correct. No particular portion of the evidence was pointed out to show that it was mis -read or was not properly appreciated. After thorough discussion of the evidence on record, the learned appellate court has come to a concurrent finding of fact that the suit premises is resonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Manoharlal for the purpose of his residence. On the basis of evidence on record, it has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Manoharlal does not own any other building at Udaipur for his residence, he is now married, building in which the families of his father Kishan Chand and uncle Kanhaiyalal are residing has not sufficient accommodation and he requires the suit premises for his residence. Admittedly, the defendant -appellant has not filed any document so far to show that the plaintiff Manoharlal has acquired any other building at Udaipur for his residence. The purchases of a big building by the father, mother, uncle and aunt and a house by aunt Raj Kumari are of no material consequence. He cannot compel them told him out or otherwise give its possession. In any view of the matter, the pricurrent finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court cannot be said to be contrary to law or perverse.

(3.) THE learned lower courts have rightly held that the plaintiff Manoharlal would suffer greater hardship if the suit premises is not vacated by the defendant appellant. It is well proved from the evidence on record that the defendant -appellant carries on tailoring business in a shop measuring 25' x 10' situated in the ground floor, the suit premises is situated on the first floor above it wherein his few tailors sit and work and during the pendency of the case the defendant -appellant acquired vacant possession of his two shops and they were let out. Both the lower courts have rightly held that the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if the suit is not decreed. This is again a finding of fact.