DEVI SHANKAR Vs. UGAM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 15/1983 by which he dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 9-8-1982 passed by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 211/1980 by which the learned Munsiff, Udaipur decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as envisaged under S. 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950').

(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows :- On 7-7-1980, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant in the Court of Munsiff, Udaipur for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as envisaged under S. 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 stating inter alia that the shop, the details of which are given in para No. 1 of the plaint, was given to the defendant-appellant by Smt. Bhuri Bai on monthly rent of Rs. 40.00. It was further alleged in the plaint that the said shop, which was given on rent by Smt. Bhuri Bai to the defendant-appellant, was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from Smt. Bhuri Bai through registered sale deed dated 2-8-1979 and thereafter, plaintiff-respondent became the owner of the shop in question. It was further alleged in the plaint that the information about purchase of the shop in question by the plaintiff-respondent from Smt. Bhuri Bai through the registered sale deed dated 2-8-1979 was given by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant through notice dated 7-8-1979. The case of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as put forward by him in para No. 4 of the plaint, was that he had no shop of his own for doing business of goldsmith and, that is why, he purchased the shop in question from Smt. Bhuri Bai and he wanted that shop for the purpose of doing his business because at present he was doing his business of goldsmith in a rented shop and not only this, owner of that rented shop had asked him to vacate the shop. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that since he was doing the business of goldsmith and he had 3-4 labourers with him, therefore, shop in question was needed by him for doing his business and his need for the shop in question was reasonable and bona fide. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that in case the shop in question was not vacated, he would be put to greater hardship than the defendant-appellant as he was the owner of the shop in question and furthermore, he was doing his business in a rented shop and the landlord of that shop had asked him to vacate that shop. Thus, it was prayed that the decree for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity may be passed in his favour. It may be stated here that since in the second appeal, the only issues pertaining to reasonable and bona fide necessity are challenged, therefore, other facts pertaining to eviction of the appellant-defendant on the ground of default are not being discussed here. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing a written statement on 12-12-1980 and in that written statement, the main contention of the defendant-appellant was that there was a shop in the north side of the shop in question in which one Yusuf used to sit, but plaintiff-respondent had got possession of that shop and, therefore, the need of the plaintiff-respondent for the shop in question came to an end, as he had got another shop adjacent to the disputed shop in question and furthermore, he was doing business in the shop in question for the last 20 years. He had further averred that the need of the plaintiff-respondent should not be termed as reasonable and bona fide as he had got another shop adjacent to the shop in question. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur on 30-3-1981 :- Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After recording evidence and hearing both the parties, the learned Munsiff, Udaipur decided the issues Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant and thus, vide judgment and decree dated 9-8-1982, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity as envisaged under S. 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 holding inter alia that the need of the plaintiff-respondent for the shop in question was found reasonable and bona fide as the plaintiff-respondent would convert the disputed shop in question with the shop adjacent to the shop in question, the possession for which was obtained by the plaintiff-respondent after filing of the suit and thereafter, he would do his business in both shops after amalgamating them into one. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 9-8-1982 passed by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur, the defendant-appellant preferred first appeal in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur, which was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur. The learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur vide his judgment and decree dated 22-12-1983 dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant and confirmed the findings on issues Nos. 3 and 4 recorded by the learned Munsiff, Udaipur through his judgment and decree dated 9-8-1982. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur, the appellant-defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court on 13-1-1984.

(3.) This Court while admitting this second appeal on 13-2-1984 framed the following substantial questions of law :-