HARISH AND ANR. Vs. ROSHAN BAHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel at length.

(2.) THIS second appeal filed by the appellant -tenant is against the concurrent findings of two Courts below ordering partial eviction of the one out of the two shops situated at 6th "A" Road, Sardapura, Jodhpur on the ground of bonafide necessity of the mother of the landlord. Roshan Baheti, a minor at the time of filing of suit in the year 2003.

(3.) MR . Bhoot, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -tenant has urged that the Courts below have wrongly held that there was bonafide necessity of the landlord as neither the landlord Roshan Baheti who was minor at the time of filing of the suit, not his mother Smt. Saroj for whose alleged bonafide necessity, eviction was sought, had appeared before the trial Court and therefore, no bonafide necessity was proved before the trial Court. He further urged that the Courts below had proceeded on the basis of assumption of bonafide necessity and in absence of evidence of such business being carried on by the mother of the plaintiff -Smt. Saroj, the Courts below could not have ordered eviction partially. 5. Mr. Bhoot relied upon various judgments in support of his submission. They are discussed in brief below.