JANKI LAL Vs. DHARMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-landlord is arising out of the judgment and eviction decree dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil Appeal Decree No.2/2007 "LRs of Janki Lal Vs. Dharmi Chand" who dismissed the appeal by the appellants-plaintiffs, allowed the cross-objections filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and partial eviction decree dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.77/1996 "LRs of Janki Lal Vs. Dharmi Chand" by which, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) had partly decreed the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs-LRs of Janki Lal seeking eviction of the defendant-Dharmi Chand and for recovery of due rent in respect of the suit property, which is a shop situated at town Gulabpura, District Bhilwara on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide need of suit premises for the landlord and his family.

(2.) The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants, who was the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court, against the approval of the findings of the learned Trial Court by the learned First Appellate Court and completely refusing the eviction decree while, the learned Trial Court had granted partial eviction in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The eviction suit was filed by the plaintiffs-landlord legal representatives of Janki Lal, namely, Kriparam & Ors. seeking eviction decree in respect of the suit shop given to the defendanttenant Dharmi Chand S/o Mohal Lal Bordiya. The suit shop is situated at Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, in which, the defendanttenant is carrying on the business of food-grain. The suit shop is of 'L' shape situated sand-witched in between the two shops already possessed by the plaintiff-landlord, in which, he carries on the business of iron goods. The Court below has refused complete eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide business need in view of expansion of his business stated by the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court granted partial eviction of the tenant and had given back portion of the 'L' shape shop to the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs partly whereas the learned First Appellate Court entirely refused to grant the eviction decree on the ground that the plaintiffS. landlord had no bona fide necessity of the suit shop in question, since he has already two shops on both the sides of the disputed suit shop for doing his business of iron goods and the back portion of his residential house is also used as 'godown' for such iron goods and, therefore, the partial eviction granted by the learned Trial Court was also refused by the First Appellate Court since it found that there was no bona fide need of the landlord at all in view of existing accommodation available to him to do his business.