DWARKA Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondents preferred a suit for eviction, against the defendant-appellants on the ground of default in the payment of rent, subletting, and personal and bona fide necessity of the suit premises for his own and his son. The learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court decided the issues regarding the default and subletting in favour of the defendant-appellants. The issue regarding personal and bona fide necessity has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Considering the question of comparative hardship, the learned trial Court ordered only partial eviction from the suit premises by directing to divide it into two parts and to give one part to the plaintiffs. On appeal by both the sides, the learned first appellate Court upheld the personal and bona fide necessity of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs and after considering the comparative hardship, reversed the order of partial eviction and directed the eviction from the entire suit premises. Feeling aggrieved thereby the defendant-appellants have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of both the sides.

(3.) There is concurrent finding that there is personal and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord-plaintiff-respondents. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence, have decided the issue No. 5 relating to the bona fide and personal necessity, in favour of the plaintiffs. The question relating to the personal and bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the case of Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar, ((1998) 6 SCC 748 : (AIR 1998 SC 2730). Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under :-