MAN SINGH Vs. LADU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant-appellant has preferred this civil second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.8.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer Camp at Kishangarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 9/2008 whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kishangarh (District Ajmer) in Civil Suit No. 61/1997 whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent filed the suit for eviction with the averment that the suit premises which is in the form of a vacant land is bonafidely and reasonably required by him so that he can construct a house on it for the residence of himself and his family members. It was also averred by him that he has no other house for the residence of himself and his family members and he is residing in rented houses from time to time since the year 1991 and before that he with his family members was residing in a house owned by his brother Shri Bhomraj. It was also submitted that the vacant land already available to him is not sufficient to construct a residential house, which may satisfy his requirement. The appellant by filing written statement denied the need shown by the respondent and it was specifically averred by him that the vacant land, which is already in the possession of the respondent, previously was in the tenancy of the appellant, but the respondent got it vacated from him on the pretext that the same is required by him to construct a residential house on it, but the respondent has failed to use it for the construction of house and, therefore, the requirement shown by the respondent cannot be said to be bonafide and reasonable. It was further submitted that in fact the respondent intends to construct a commercial complex on the suit property after getting it vacated from the appellant. It was also submitted that both the sons of respondent are presently residing permanently at Mount Abu and they are doing their own business there and have also constructed their own houses there. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues and after hearing both the parties and appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record, it was held by the trial Court that the requirement shown by the respondent is bonafide and reasonable and if decree is not passed in favour of him greater hardship will be faced by him in comparison to the appellant as the appellant made no efforts to take another premises on rent or otherwise for his use and occupation. It was also found by the trial Court that looking to the need shown by the parties partial vacation is not possible. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.8.2010. Still dissatisfied the defendant-appellant is before this Court by way of this second appeal.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, the appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 7.9.2011 on the following substantial questions of law: