RAM SWAROOP Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Alwar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 67/99 rejecting the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of eviction of the suit shop passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Alwar in COS No. 364/86.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the plaintiff - respondent instituted a suit against the defendant for his eviction from the suit shop described in para 1 of the plaint on twin grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable bonafide necessity of the shop for his sons Man Prakash and Hem Chand for starting typing and shorthand institute. THE defendant appellant contested the suit by filling written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and pleading that both the sons of the plaintiff were already employed in Government service. THE plaintiff then amended his plaint under the orders of the trial court so as to add further plea that he required the shop for starting new business of stationary in the suit shop after his retirement. THE trial court framed seven issues stemming from the pleadings of the parties including issue No. 4 pertaining to partial eviction. THE plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Hem Chand PW-2, Radhey Shyam PW-3 and Jagdish PW-4 and defendant examined himself as DW- 1, Shri Ram DW-2, Babu Singh DW-3, Om Prakash DW-4 and Mohan Lal DW-5. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the default in payment of rent as alleged was not proved and accordingly issue No. 1 which pertained to default was decided against the plaintiff but issue No. 2, 3 and 4 which were with regard to reasonable bonafide necessity, comparative hard-ship and partial eviction were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. THE suit was decreed on 16. 10. 1998 which decree was affirmed by the first appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree and, therefore, the defendant appellant has filled this second appeal.

(3.) IN 'girdhari Lal vs. Smt. Kanta & Others' (5), it has been held on the basis of various Supreme Court and High Court authorities that partial eviction and bonafide necessity are not substantial questions of law.