OM PRAKASH Vs. CHAND DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant and it arises out of a suit instituted By the respondent Smt. Chand Devi for the eviction of the appellant from the suit property and for arrears of rent.

(2.) SMT. Chand Devi purchased a building bearing AMC No. 16/394 situated near Madar Gate, Ajmer on 16-11-1962. The suit property formed part of this building and consists of one shop, three Kothries in the grand-floor and two tin-sheds on the first flour. Admittedly, Om Prakash was the tenant of the previous owner and he attorned to SMT. Chand Devi as his landlady. He paid rent upto 31-5-65 at the rate of Rs. 21/-per mensem. Plaintiff SMT. Chand Devi sought eviction of the defendant Om Prakash on the ground that she required the shop and the residential portion for use and occupation of herself and the members of her family. Inspite of notice and the tenancy having been determined, the defendant tenant did not surrender possession. Accordingly, on 17-7-1963 she instituted the suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer City (West) claiming eviction of the defendant from the suit property and Rs. 53. 20 as arrears of rent and mesne profits. She also prayed for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 21/- per mensem from the date of the suit.

(3.) IN the case of Birdhichand, the nature of business was not disclosed in the plaint and it was only stated that the plaintiffs required the shop for his own use and occupation as he purchased it for starting his own business. IN the statement as well, he did not go beyond that. The learned trial Judge was not satisfied as regards the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. He dismissed the suit. IN appeal, the finding was reversed and it was held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have disclosed the nature of business and it was enough if the plaintiff had said that he wanted to carry on business on the shop in question. The question in the second appeal, therefore, that came for consideration was whether the view taken by the first appellate court was right. It was in that context that Bhargava J. held that the learned first appellate court misdirected itself on the question that it is enough for the landlord to say that he required the premises for his own business without disclosing its nature and it is upon this premise that he has found that statement of the plaintiff sufficient to discharge the burden that the shop was required reasonably and bona fide for his personal use and occupation. He was of the opinion that this view was erroneous. This case has no doubt some bearing on the question involved in this case.