MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. MOTILAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff/landlord, Mahendra Singh S/o. late Sh. Major Raghunath Singh Chawda, (legal representation of original plaintiff/landlady Smt. Rampyari) has preferred this second appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.05.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 44/1999 - Motilal Vs. LR's Smt. Ram Kumari (Sic! Rampyari), whereby the appeal filed by the defendant/tenant was allowed, reversing the judgment and eviction decree dated 26.02.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), City (South), Udaipur, in Civil Original Suit No. 405/93. Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Motilal, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for eviction was decreed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlady.

(2.) THE original plaintiff/landlady, Smt. Ram Pyari, filed a suit for eviction against the original defendant/tenant, Motilal, to whom the suit shop situated in Ganesh Ghati, Udaipur, was let out on 01.06.1973 under oral tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs. 275/ -. The suit shop was being used by the defendant/tenant as a godown. According to the plaintiff/landlady, the defendant/tenant made material alternations in the suit property without prior permission of her. The plaintiff/lady further averred in the plaint that the suit shop is required for starting the business for his son, namely, Mahendra Singh, (appellant herein) of painting and handicrafts as the locality where the suit shop is situated is a place where tourists used to visit. The defendant/tenant is also having an alternative shop near clock tower. Thus, the plaintiff/landlady filed the suit for seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity for his son.

(3.) THE learned trial court as per pleadings of the parties framed eight issues. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and in documentary evidence got exhibited 11 documents. From the side of the defendant/tenant, the defendant examined five witnesses also also exhibited certain documents.