BAL MUKUND Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-plaintiffs-landlord, who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, Bal Mukund, have filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed by learned first lower appellate Court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Bhilwara whereby the first appeal filed by the respondent-defendant-tenant being Civil Appeal No.100/2000- Chandra Prakash Vs. Bal Mukund, came to be allowed reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shahpura, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.63/1994- Bal Mukund Vs. Chandra Prakash decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction, the appellate court dismissed the eviction suit.

(2.) The original plaintiff-landlord, Bal Mukund filed suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit premises, a plot of land, measuring 60' x 64', situated at Shahpura, Bhilwara, which initially was given on rent to the defendant-tenant, Chandra Prakash in the year 1982 at a monthly rent of Rs.1011/-. The defendant is carrying on business of selling building materials on the said plot of land. The said tenancy was oral and no written rent-note was executed. The eviction suit was filed, inter-alia, on the ground of default in making payment of monthly rent and bonafide need of the landlord as his three sons were unemployed and for setting up their business, the suit premises was sought to be evicted so that they can construct and start business of hotel on the plot of land and some part whereof may given on rent to some bank.

(3.) The learned trial court while deciding the Issue No.3 in relation to the bonafide need, at page 3 of the judgment and decree, has found that the PW.1 Bal Mukund (landlord) had five sons, namely, Pradeep, Anil, Arun, Naveen and Nitin, and out of which, last three sons, were qualified but unemployed at the time of filing of the suit. The landlord wanted to construct a hotel on the said plot of land and for giving part of the premises to some bank. Therefore, the suit premises was sought to be evicted for constructing and starting business of hotel for his three sons. The family of the plaintifflandlord also owned certain buses and were doing the transport business. The learned trial court finding in favour of landlord-plaintiff held that three sons of the landlord were unemployed and, therefore, the plot in question, let out to the defendant-tenant, was bonafidely required for the business needs of the landlord and the suit deserves to be decreed and same was decreed. However, the learned trial court did not find any default in payment of rent and the issue framed in this regard came to be decided against the plaintiff-landlord. Thus, the decree of eviction was granted on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord and the mesne profit was fixed at Rs.450/- per month, which is said to have been paid even till now.