KANTI PRASAD Vs. SHANKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1988 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota, by which the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and maintained the decree and judgment dated 18th August, 1983 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Kanti Prasad filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent with respect to the house situated in Vijaypada, Kota. The suit was filed on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity, default of payment of rent, material alterations made in the suit property, inconsistent user of the suit property for which he was admitted in the suit premises and that the tenant has created nuisance. It was also averred that the defendants have pledged some of his goods and kept a board of Bank on some portion of the premises which has resulted in lowering the prestige of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Court by its decree and judgment dt. 18th August, 1983 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The question of reasonable and bonafide necessity, material alterations, inconsistent user of the property and the nuisance were decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants while the question of default in payment of rent was decided In favour of the plaintiff but because it was a first default, therefore, the defendants were given benefit of Section 13(6) of the Act and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgment dated 18th August, 1983 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kota which was transferred for disposal to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota who by his decree and order dated 26th June, 1988 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and maintained the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota. The learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal also decided the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity, material alteration, inconsistent user of the property and unisance against the plaintiff and affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court. It is against this judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. Both the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff retired from, the Government service in the year 1972 and since after his retirement he is residing at Sri Ganganagar along with his family members, and there is no bonafide necessity of the plaintiff or any of his family members. The findings arrived at by the Courts below regarding reasonable and bonafide necessity as well as of the material alteration, inconsistent user of the property and nuisance are purely findings of facts and both the Courts below concurrently decided all these issues against the plaintiff and have given cogent reasons in support of these findings.