SHANTILAL Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs/landlord, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Shantilal, have filed this second appeal under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in this Court on 02.01.2002 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara dismissing plaintiff's First Appeal No. 31/2000 (242/96) and the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1994 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Bhilwara, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/landlord against the defendant/tenant for seeking eviction from the suit shop situated in Kapasan, District: Chittorgarh, (Civil Original Suit No. 127/1993) on the ground of bona fide need of the suit premises for starting business for the son of the landlord.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for eviction with respect to suit shop which was let out to defendant/tenant on oral contract at a monthly rent of Rs. 401/ -. The plaintiff claimed eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the suit shop for his son, for starting the business of grocery, who did his M. Com and was unemployed. Initially, the defendant paid rent up till "Samvat Year" 2038, however, thereafter has not paid any rent. Thus it was prayed that decree for eviction be granted and arrears of rent may also directed to be paid by the defendant/tenant.

(3.) Upon receipt of the summons, the defendant/respondent filed his written statement while denying the facts averred in the plaint. The defendant disputed the bona fide need of the landlord and it was pleaded that the son of the plaintiff, namely, Rajkumar has no experience of doing the business of grocery. The fact with regard default in payment of rent was also denied. In the amended written statement, which he (defendant) filed on 03.08.1984 he averred that since the son of the plaintiff, Rajkumar, had started a business in the backside of the suit shop and as such there was no bona fide need of the plaintiff/landlord. Thus it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.