KEWAL CHAND Vs. KHUMAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit premises belongs to the respondent landlord and that is in occupation of the defendant-appellants (tenants). There are two adjoining shops having two different numbers but separated by a stone wall, one is in the occupation of the respondent-landlord himself and the other in the occupation of the defendant- tenants, both shops owned by the respondent. As per Annex. P/8, the size of both the shops is 18' 6" x 7' 6". In one of the shops, the respondentlandlord is carrying on the business of making and selling shoes whereas in the adjoining shop the appellant-tenants are carrying on business. Admittedly the appellants are tenant in the demised premises.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed suit for ejectment of the appellants from the shop situated in the city of Jodhpur at Tabela Bazar, Sumer Market on the allegations that the shop was required by the landlord for the use of his son Devi Lal who would settle his business of selling skin from the demised premises. It is alleged that his son Devilal has passed the examination of 10th class and does not want to pursue his studies any further as he is desirous of starting the business of selling skin. The need of his son is genuine. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has a large family and it is difficult to maintain the family from the income derived from his business of making shoes and selling them. It is also alleged that if decree for ejectment is not granted the landlord will suffer hardship more thin the tenants. Devilal has acquired experience in the business by working beside him in his shop during his studies. There is no shop of skin in the nearby place and, therefore, for the business of sale of skin the shop is suitable. The other ground on which the ejectment was sought for is that the tenants have removed horizontal stone-slabs which were fixed in the shop for the purpose of putting goods in between the night of 15th and 16th September, 1976 without the permission of the landlord which has caused material alteration in the premises. Thus the landlord has sought ejectment under Section 13(1)(h) and (c) of the Rajasthan Premies (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act').

(3.) The tenants filed written-statement and denied genuine requirement and alleged that the landlord's requirement for his son of the premises is not reasonable and bona fide. The landlord has sufficient space in the premises, in which he is carrying on business and therein his son can be accommodated for his business. The tenant has a large family and their subsistence depends on the income derived from the shop. If the tenants are ejected from the suit premises, they will suffer hardship and thus comparative inconvenience will be more to the tenants if decree for ejectment is passed.