JAMNADASS Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the landlord in a suit for eviction from a shop situated at Tripolia Bazar in Jaipur City. The premises were let out by the appellant to the respondent, Rajendra Kumar, on 22nd October, 1960 for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs. 33/ -. The respondent is carrying on business in sale of books and stationery in the name of M/s. Rajasthan Prakashan in the said premises The appellant is a qualified engineer. He was earlier employed with Kamani Engineering Corporation. Some time in 1967 he left the service and started business of sale of electrical goods and machines. For that purpose he took on rent two shops on Motilal Atal Road, at Jaipur on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/ -. On-"2nd August, 1968 he filed the suit, giving rise to this appeal, for eviction of the respondent. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent on two grounds, namely, (i) default in payment of rent and: (ii) reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the appellant. The ground of default in payment of rent was later not pursued by the appellant and the only ground on which he is now seeking eviction of the respondent is reasonable and bonafide personal necessity. The case of the appellant, as set out in the plaint, in this regard was that since no shop of the appellant was vacant he had to take on the shops at Motilal Atal Road but the said shops were not suitable for carrying on the business in electric goods and moreover the rent for the said shops was Rs. 425/- per month whereas he is getting only Rs. 33/- per month for the premises in possession of the respondent. The appellant also submitted that the suit premises are more suitable for carrying on the business in electric goods and that the appellant wanted to shift his business to the suit premises and, therefore, he requires the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant left the shops which were taken on Motilal Atal Road and took on rent a shop at Johari Bazar on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/- and shifted his business to the said shop at Johari Bazar and now he is carrying on his business in electrical goods at Johari Bazar in the name of Deepak Engineering Works.

(2.) THE respondent contested the suit and filed written statement. THE said written statement was amended by the respondent in 1971 and the amended written statement dated 7th October, 1971 was filed. THE appellant filed a replication dated 30th October, 1971 to the said amended written statement. Further amended written statement was filed on 25th October, 1975.

(3.) SHRI Mehta has urged that the concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts below on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and comparative hardship against the appellant and that the said find-ings do not suffer from any legal error or infirmity which may justify interference in second appeal.