BHAWANI PRASAD Vs. ROSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant has preferred this Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar in Civil Regular Appeal No.171/2008 whereby the learned appellate Court has upheld and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2006 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Sikar in Civil Suit No.156/2003 whereby the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffrespondent was decreed.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent-landlord filed Civil Suit No.156/2003 in the trial Court against the tenant-appellant for eviction from the suit shop with the averment that the suit shop is bonafidely and reasonably required by him for the use and occupation of his son Shri Shakeel to do the business of general goods for which he has suffficient experience. The appellant filed written statement and denied the requirement shown by the respondent with the averment that the2 son of the respondent is presently residing in Saudi Arab and is earning a huge amount of money and, therefore, the requirement shown by the respondent for the suit shop is not bonafide and reasonable. It was also averred by the appellant that adjacent to the suit shop there is another shop of the respondent which was previously on rent with one Shri Gaffar Pathan but it was got vacated about 18 years ago and it is available to the respondent for his use and occupation. It was further averred that in case decree of eviction is passed the appellant will face more hardship in comparison to the respondent. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties came to a conclusion that the need shown by the respondent is bonafide and reasonable and if decree for eviction is not passed in comparison to the appellant the respondent will face more hardship. It was also held that both the parties agreed that decree for partial eviction is not possible. On the basis of evidence available on record the trial Court found that son of the respondent is temporarily residing in Saudi Arab and working as a labour there but that does not mean that the requirement shown for the suit shop has come to an end and it is not reasonable and bonafide. It was further held that the adjacent shop to the suit shop is being used by the respondent for his and his family members residence and for storing house hold goods and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is lying vacant and it can be used for the need shown by the respondent. Consequently upon the findings arrived at the3 suit filed by the respondent was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed appeal under Section 96 CPC before the first appellate Court and the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010. On the basis of evidence available on record, the learned appellate Court concurred with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Still dissatisfied the tenant-appellant is before this Court by way of this Civil Second Appeal.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:-