RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. SURESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings on issues No. 2 and 6 relating to bonafide necessity and comparative hardship. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved that he will supervise the hotel, which he wants to establish in the premises in question. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, a new case was set up for the first time before the first appellate court. He urged that admittedly, the plaintiff is suffering from Tubercules and as per the medical evidence, he would not be in a position to run the hotel. It was essential for the plaintiff to have pleaded in such a situation that he would only supervise the work in the hotel and he will not involve himself as in any physical work. It may be stated that the plaintiff pleaded that he will establish a modern hotel in the premises in question. The very idea of running of a modern hotel implies that there will be some workers engaged by him and he will supervise their work. Whatsoever pleadings are there, in my opinion, the factor of supervision is implicit in the pleadings and that has rightly been considered by the first appellate court, so on that basis finding on issue no. 2, in my opinion, is not in any way vitiated.

(3.) I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed without any order as to costs.