SHYAM LAL Vs. HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIRA Lal and Jawahar Lal son of Manak Chand (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed civil suit No. 60 of 1977 against the appellant Shyamlal and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Smt. Khusibai widow of Khodumal Sindhi for ejectment from a shop which had been taken on rent by the deceased Khodumal from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on January 10, 1951 on a monthly rental of Rs. 8/-. Rent was raised to Rs. 12/- per month before the suit was filed. Ejectment was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that Anil Kumar son of Hiralal respondent No. 1 had attained majority and Hiralal wanted him to carry on cloth business in the suit shop. It may be mentioned that the suit was originally filed against Khodumal Sindhi original tenant who died pending the suit and his legal representatives that is sons, widow and daughters were substituted on record. The suit was contested only by Shyamlal appellant. Rest of the legal representatives of the deceased remained ex parte.

(2.) MUNSIF , Udaipur City (South) by his judgment and decree dated July 25, 1980 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for ejectment. A decree for Rs. 24/- on account of arrears of rent with future rent was also passed. The Munsif decreed the suit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on two grounds. Firstly, that the original tenant Khodumal Sindhi had expired and Omparkash, who was ordinarily carrying on business with Khodumal Sindhi, was not surviving son of the deceased tenant. On the other hand, he was son of a living son Shyamlal of deceased Khodumal Sindhi. Consequently on the death of Khodumal Sindhi, Omprakash did not become a statutory tenant within the definition of that expression in Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Secondly, the Munsif held that the suit shop was reasonably and bonafide required by Hiralal respondent No. 1 for the use and occupation of his son Anil Kumar who wanted to start cloth business in the shop. Aggrieved by this decree, Shyamlal filed Civil First Appeal No. 92 of 1980 which was decided by the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur on June 3, 1983. The Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur agreed with the findings of the Munsif, Udaipur City (South) on both these points. Shyamlal has come in second appeal before this Court.

(3.) I may also refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 796. It was rightly pointed out in Gordhanlal's case (supra) that the decision in Gian Devi Anand's case, even with respect to commercial premises cannot be an authority for interpreting Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Act because in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the heirship had not been restricted in respect of commercial premises as has been done under Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Act. It is also important to note that if according to Shyamlal, his son Omparkash had become statutory tenant after the death of Khodumal Sindhi, it was Omparkash alone who was an aggrieved person, and in that event Shyamlal has even no locus standi to file the present appeal. On the second point, there is concurrent finding of fact that the suit shop is required by Hiralal respondent No. 1 for the use and occupation of his major son Anil Kumar PW-1 who wants to start cloth business in the suit shop. Anil Kumar had experience in textile as he had served for some time in that line in Ahmedabad Cotton Mill and that service had been left by him. The concurrent findings given by the Courts below on this point cannot be interfered in second appeal.