MOTILAL Vs. BANARSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dated 21.2.74 by which he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff landlord against the appellant.

(2.) The Nohra in dispute was originally taken on rent by the appellant on 1.4.59 at the rate of Rs. 16.75 per mensem. The plaintiff-respondent purchased this Nohra on 24.10.69 from the previous owner for Rs. 10,000/- and after giving a notice to the petitioner, he filed the suit for eviction. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was running his business of sanitary goods and that there was not enough space with him and he required it bonafide for use of his business. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the appellate Court by its judgments dated 21.12.74 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On 3.3.76, when the matter came up for hearing the matter was remitted to the Lower Appellate after framing an issue of comparative hardship in view of the amendment made in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976. The lower appellate Court recorded the evidence and has sent its report to the Court with a finding in favour of the landlord.

(3.) Mr. Vyas learned counsel for the tenant first attacks the finding of the lower appellate Court that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord. The lower appellate Court has found that the accommodation available with the plaintiff is not enough to keep his goods and that it was necessary for his business to have this plot for his business purposes. The lower appellant Court has rejected the plea of the appellant that the suit has been brought to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent. The lower appellate Court found no evidence in support of this plea of alleged motive of enhancing the rent. The lower appellate Court also noticed that the premises were purchased on 24.10.69 and the notice was sent on 21.8.70 and the suit was soon thereafter brought which would also show that there was no oblique motive in bringing the suit. The lower appellate Court has thus on the consideration of evidence on record come to a finding of fact that the need of the plaintiff is reasonable and bonafide and sitting in second appeal it is not possible to disturb it.