RADHEY SHYAM Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant defendant's second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. THIS appeal had come up before me earlier on 7th May, 1987 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the case was remanded back to the first appellate court for recording additional evidence, on the ground of subsequent events, to show that the landlord has acquired-alternative accommodation where his son is carrying on his business of auto repairs. The first appellate court has recorded the additional evidence and has submitted the same to this court. Now, this case has come up for final disposal at the admission stage.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent had filed the suit out of which the present appeal has come upon the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, on 4. 1. 73. THE trial court decreed the suit on 15. 4. 1975. During the pendency of appeal, because of amendment in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the 'rent Control Act' the case was remanded to the trial court for recording evidence on the point of comparative hardship. THE trial court decreed the suit again. THE appea1 was also dismissed. An appeal, being S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 103/1979 filed by the tenant was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were framed:- "1. Whether the learned courts below misconstrued the material part of the statement of the plaintiff relating to his admission that he filed suit for defendant refused to advance loan of Rs. 11,000/- against mortgage? 2. Whether the learned courts below made a substantial error of law when it (sic they) did not give due importance to the aforementioned admission of the plaintiff for the same had not been pleaded by the defendant?

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also challenged before me the finding of the Distt. Judge, with regard to mala fide of the plaintiff in filing the appeal. He has submitted that since the appellant did not pay Rs. 11,000/-to the plaintiff, he had filed the present suit. I have also looked into the evidence recorded by the District Judge after the remand order in civil second appeal No. 103/79, and I am fully satisfied with the finding of the District Judge in that regard. The plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of a decree passed against him in the suit and therefore, he asked his both the tenant if they could pay him Rs. 10,000/ -. The present appellant did not accept this offer whereas the other tenant accepted the offer and made available the requisite amount to the landlord by which he could satisfy the decree passed against him. Since the plaintiff wanted his shop for his son Om Parkash who wanted to start his business of motor cycle repairs he had filed the present suit. It cannot be said that the plaintiff had filed the suit malafide or for any ulterior motive.