JUGAL KISHORE Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, confirming the decree of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1 Jodhpur City, in a suit for ejectment. There is a concurrent finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff required the shop for his personal use and occupation and the requirement is reasonable and bonafide.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions, (1) that the Courts below in coming to the conclusion that the shop is required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation have ignored the fact that the plaintiff had on previous occasions also been asking the appellant to vacate the shop, but subsequently became satisfied when the rent was increased. Even after the present note executed he started asking the defendant to vacate the shop because he required it himself which is clear from the contention of the notice, and (2) that the rent-note was in favour of the plaintiff and his two sons, Murlidhar and Girdhari Lal and so tenancy could have been terminated by all the three and similarly the suit could have been instituted by all of them but the present case, the notice for terminating the tenancy was given by the plaintiff alone and similarly the suit has been filed by him alone.

(3.) So far as the first contention is concerned, both the Courts, after considering the evidence on record, have come to the finding that the shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for starting a hotel because as his present shop in which he was running a 'pan' shop was small. They have considered the evidence that the plaintiff also tried to run a hotel in the present 'pan' shop, but that have to be closed because there was no sufficient space in it. They have also considered the fact that one of his sons has attained majority and is 18 years of age and is sharing the business at the 'pan' shop. They also considered the evidence regarding the enhancement of rent produced by the defendant. Evidence was also produced that the plaintiff has obtained a licence from the municipality for running a hotel. Thus, on these facts, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the two Courts below is wrong. The finding of fact therefore, cannot be assailed in second appeal.