OM PRAKASH MAHECHA Vs. RANCHHOD BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction from the suit shop on the ground that the plaintiff along with his two sons will do the business in the suit shop. The plaintiff pleaded that his two sons will contribute towards the house expenses of the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 30.5.2003 on the grounds that it has come on record in the evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is old man and cannot do the business. The plaintiff's one son Neelkamal is in service in a private firm and another son started taxi driving after availing loan being unemployed person. In view of the above facts, the trial court reached to the conclusion that both the sons of the plaintiff are earning members, therefore, the need of the plaintiff cannot be said to be surviving. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court gave reasoned judgment and the plaintiff's sons are earning, therefore, the plaintiff's entire case that they are not having any earning to contribute towards family expenses has been belied by the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff is an old man. The said judgment of the trial court was reversed by the first appellate court without appreciating the reasons given by the trial court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case and record.