PRABHU LAL Vs. NANA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 24, 1986 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Udaipur, affirming the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1982 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City North, Udaipur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit for eviction was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, City North Udaipur on August 27, 1977 against the appellant herein on the ground that the suit premises, the shop, is required reasonably and bonafide for the son of the plaintiff for establishing his readymade garments business in the said shop and that the defendant was the defaulter in payment of rent. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied the personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and also contested the plaintiff's claim that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

(3.) SO far as the question of default is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent does not press this as a ground for eviction and I need not, therefore, enter into this question. As regards he bonafide and personal need of the plaintiff, I agree with the finding of the learned counsel below that the shop is required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for his son for establishing garments business in the suit shop. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the site inspection made on November 22, 1982 shows that there are six shops and not four and, therefore, the learned Courts below have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that there were only four shops. I have looked into the site inspection. Four shops have been shown in the site inspection memo. Learned counsel contends that shop No. 2 is not one shop but it consists of two shops and that shop No. 1 can also be converted into two shops. There is no dividing wall in shop No. 2 to divide it into two shops and, therefore, looking to the site inspection memo it cannot be said that it consists of two shops. In the same manner, shop No. 1 is also not capable of being divided into two shops. Learned Courts below have rightly proceeded on the premise that there were four shops out of which shop No. 9 was already on lease with her tenant. Shop No. 1 was being used by the plaintiff himself in his business of tailor, while shop No. 2 was being used by the plaintiff's wife for ginning cotton. The finding of the learned Courts below is correct that the plaintiff requires the suit shop i.e. shop No. 4 for his son for establishing the garments business. The learned Additional District Judge has given good reasons. He has said :-