MOHAN LAL Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of his tenants from the suit property which was let out to the defendants on 15.7.1964. The suit was filed on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and, thereafter, it was also pleaded that plaintiff's two sons became major and they also can do the business, therefore, the suit property is required for the business of the plaintiff and his sons. The plaintiff's case was that he was doing business in the shop but that shop fell in the share of his brother. His brother insisted for vacating the shop, therefore, the plaintiff vacated the shop and now the plaintiff wants to do the business in the shop which has been let out to the defendants. The defendants denied the allegations. The trial court framed issues. The plaintiff gave his own statement and produced witnesses P.W.1-Duli Chand and P.W.2 Jagannath and after the remand order passed by the appellate court, the plaintiff was again examined and he produced witnesses Duli Chand and Bali Mohd. The defendants Sita Ram and Mahaveer Prasad gave their statements and produced witnesses D.W.2 Ram Niwas, D.W.3 Mahaveer Prasad, D.W. Bal Chand, D.W.5 Megha Ram, D.W.6 Noor Mohd. and D.W.7 Laxmi Narain. The trial court after considering evidence of the parties held that the plaintiff proved need for the shop in dispute and the need is bonafide. The trial court also held that in case the suit property is not given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will suffer greater hardship. However, the trial court passed the decree for eviction for part of the property which is permissible under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which provides for passing of the decree for part of the plaintiff's property in case need of the plaintiff can be satisfied by giving part of the property.

(3.) The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 12.11.1982 was challenged by the tenants. The appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellate court also dismissed the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff. Hence the landlord being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 22.91984 has preferred this appeal.