PERMANAND Vs. GIRDHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff-landlord, Permanand S/o Puroshottam Dass Bhatia has filed the present second appeal against the respondent-defendant-tenant, Girdhari Lal S/o Danmal Daiya under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court of District Judge, Jaisalmer allowing defendant-tenant's appeal No.1/95- Girdhari Lal Vs. Permanand vide its judgment and decree dated 01.06.1998 reversing the judgment and eviction decree of learned trial court dated 04.02.1995 of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer decreeing the eviction suit No.2/87- Permanand Vs. Girdhari Lal.

(2.) THE appellant-plaintiff, Permanand filed suit on 23.12.1986 seeking ejectment of the defendant-tenant, Girdhari Lal from the suit shop in question, situated at Jaisalmer, which was initially let out to the defendant-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.150/-, which rent was later on increased to Rs.250/- from 01.04.1983. The suit was filed, inter-alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide need of the suit shop for the son of the plaintiff, namely, Manmohan, who was physically disabled, and on the ground of material alteration in the suit shop without there being consent of the plaintiff-landlord.

(3.) MR . M.L. Chhangani, learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff-landlord submitted that the learned first appellate court below has grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned and cogent findings of the learned trial court below and on erroneous assumptions that the disabled son of the plaintiff, Manmohan was already doing some business in the name and style of M/s Shiv Plastic in a small shop, situated under the staircase of the residential house and, therefore, the need for him for the suit shop, which was bigger, was not required bonafidely. He submitted that the bonafide need of the suit shop was duly established before the learned trial court in the statement of PW.1- Permanand (landlord) himself as well as statements of PW.6, Manmohan, the son, and other witnesses also appeared on behalf of plaintiff, narrating the family circumstances and need for settling the said son Manmohan in their respective statements.