STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated February 1, 1993 by which the defendant's first appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated June 1, 1991, decreeing the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment of the defendants has been confirmed.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal may be summarised thus. On September 27, 1982, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and memo profica and ejectment of the defendants with the allegations, in short, that his mother Mst. Chhota Devi let out the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-, rent was paid by the defendants upto August 31, 1979 and his mother Chhota Devi has died on April 12, 1980. It has further been averred that the suit premises are reasonable and bonafide required by him for the resident of the members of his family. The defendants filed their written-statement admitting that the Government Upper Primary School is being run in it, it is on rent, rent has been paid @ Rs. 150/- per month upto August 31, 1979 and Mst. Chhota Devi died on April 12, 1980. It has also been averred that the plaintiff Narain Singh was repeatedly requested to produce succession certificate entitling him to recover rent from them but he failed to do so. The remaining averments have been denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court held that the defendants have committed default in payment of rent of more than six months, the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for the residence of the members of his family which includes two married sons and one grown up son and accordingly decreed the suit. The appellate court confirmed these findings and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) IT was next contended by the learned Government Advocate that both the lower courts have seriously erred to hold that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for the residence of the members of his family. This contention has no force. Both the lower courts have rightly held that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for the residence of his family consisting of 3 married sons and that children besides the plaintiff and his wife particularly when the present accommodation at the disposal of the plaintiff is one room and one 'ora' only. It is a finding of fact. It is not open to challenge in second appeal. Reference of Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596, Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Randhir Chandra Dutta, 1988(1) RCR 48(Cal.) : AIR 1988 SC 396, Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, 1989(2) RCR 331 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 396 and E. Mehboob Saheb v. N. Subbarayan Choudhary, AIR 1982 SC 679 may be made here. It has also been held in Ranappa v. Bajjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633 that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact cannot be a ground for interference in second appeal. Gross error cannot also be a ground for interference. Reference of Shanker Gopinath Apthe v. Gangabai, AIR 1976 SC 2507 may be made here.