NARAINCHAND MEHTA Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal directed against the appellate decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, and arises out of a suit for ejectment.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit is a shop forming part of a building situated outside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur known as Ramnath Chand Mehta Bhawan. It comprises a residential bungalow and two wings in which there are 10 shops abutting the road. THE property was owned by Shri Thanchand Mehta, Advocate. Shri Than Chand Mehta had introduced the defendant-respondent as a tenant on the suit shop on 1-4-56 on a monthly rent of Rs. 32/ -. THE defendant was running an Optician's shop there. Subsequently on 22-9-56, Shri Thanchand Mehta made a gift of the shops including the suit shop in Ramnath Chand Mehta Bhawan to his son Shri Narain Chand Mehta, the plaintiff. THEreafter the defendant started paying rent to Shri Narain Chand. Narainchand passed his L. L. B. Examination in 1965 and was enrolled as an Advocate of the Rajasthan High Court in January, 1966. Shree Narain Chand Mehta then gave a notice to the defendant determining his tenancy saying that he needed the suit shop for purposes of establishing his office as an Advocate as he had no accommodation for the same in the residential portion of the building. He averred that there were three rooms in the house where visitors came, one was the drawing cum-dining room, another was an office room of Shri Than Chand Mehta and the third one was a guest room. THE plaintiff went on to say that he was having certain cases exclusively for himself and was facing difficulty in talking with his clients and he had to utilise the verandah of the residential portion for having meetings with his clients, which was inconvenient. THErefore, he sought to make out a case of his bona fide personal necessity for the suit premises.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-respondent has tried to counter the several arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and has supported the conclusions of the learned Additional District Judge. The learned counsel also raised a two-fold contention : (1) that no second appeal was maintainable in the present case according to the provisions of sec. 22 of the Act inasmuch as the decree or order passed by the lower court was one under the Act; (2) in the second place he argued that the case did not give rise to any question of law so as to justify the court's interference in the second appeal. He pointed out that the learned Additional District Judge has disbelieved the plaintiff's statement in clear terms as would be evident from the passage quoted by me above and, therefore, this was nothing but a finding of fact that the plaintiff had not been able to establish bona fide and reasonable necessity of the suit premises. LEARNED counsel also emphasised that the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge and the assessment of the plaintiff's statement has not been challenged in the memo of appeal.