SOHAN LAL Vs. KHETU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents - plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against the appellants-defendants on the ground of personal necessity in the year 1970. THE trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs on the point of their personal bonafide requirement. But, on the ground of comparative hardship, the trial court dismissed the suit by its order dated 29th of May, 1981. In appeal, the learned Judge not only found in favour of the personal requirement of the plaintiffs, but also found that greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs if the suit is not decreed. THErefore, on 29th of January, 1994 he allowed the appeal and set-aside the decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THOUGH no stay was granted by this Court against the impugned order, the decree is not executed on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE question of bonafide and personal requirement is not a substantial question of law. It is at the most a mixed question of law and fact. Even if the courts below had committed error in appreciating the evidence, that fact itself would not be sufficient to entertain this second appeal. In this case, the landlord-plaintiffs filed the suit in 1970 are still not able to get the possession though the decree was passed in their favour in 1994.