(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 10. 12. 1998 whereby the judgment and decree of eviction dated 6. 12. 1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur was affirmed.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for eviction with the averments that suit shop at Jaipur was let-out to the defendant on 1. 6. 1973 at monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. He sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and sub-letting/parting with possession of the suit shop.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff first came with the case that the suit shop is required for him as he wants to carry on cloth business but at that time he was in service and thus no cause of action arose on the day the suit was filed. This submission is devoid of merit, firstly because it was the case of the plaintiff that he is going to retire and it was not disputed now that the plaintiff stands retired. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale vs. M/s. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. (1), held that the requirement may not be in praesenti or within reasonable proximity in the future. The word bonafide means that need must be honest and should not be tainted with any oblique motive and the Court should not proceed on assumption that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. Secondly, the suit was based not only on the ground of the requirement of the plaintiff but also on other grounds which were also found proved by the courts below. As far as the requirement of the plaintiff's son is concerned both the courts below have arrived at this conclusion that since during the pendency of the proceedings the plaintiff's son has got government service, his requirement no more exists.