A landlord can evict a tenant if he has a reasonable and bonafide necessity for the premises, even if the tenant has been occupying the premises for a long time.

1. This is defendant-tenant's second appeal against the decree of eviction passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer.

2. The original plaintiff Bala Prasad filed the present suit in the year 1971 against the appellant on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity and for carrying on business by his son Satish Chandra in the disputed shop. The suit was contested. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction, by its order dated 7.2.1976. The appellant went in appeal During the pendency of the first appeal. the defendant applied for amendment of the written statement. The amendment was allowed and an additional issue No. 1 B was framed and the case was remanded back by the first appellate Court vide its order dated 1.9.1980 to the trial court for recording fresh evidence and to give a fresh finding on Issues No 1, 1-A and 1B. After remand, the trial court recorded additional evidence afresh led by the parties and vide its findings dated 3.7.1981, came to the conclusion that the suit premises were not required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff and also decided the issue regarding comparative hardship in favour of the defendant. It further held under Issue No.1-B that no quarter has been allotted to the plaintiff's son Satish Chandra at Chittorgarh. After receiving the findings of the trial court, the first appellate court after hearing arguments set aside the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, for eviction. It is against this judgement and decree that the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued the appeal and has submitted that the approach of the first appellate court is against law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the following authorities (1) Mattulal V. Radhey Lal (AIR 1574 SC 1996). , (2) M. M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma (AIR 1981 SC 1113) ; (3) Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (AIR 1981 SC 1711 ) , and (4) Variety Emporium v. B.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina (1985 (1) SCC 261).

4. He has therefore, submitted that the judgement of the learned first appellate court should be set aside. He has further submitted that Bala Prasad plaintiff has died during the pendency of the suit and Satish Chandra has been brought on record as his legal representative, After filing of the suit. Satish Chandra has been employed in a cement factory, and has been drawing a sum of Rs. 1600/- and has been made permanent there. Therefore, the only need as disclosed in the plaint having been fulfilled, the landlord cannot he said to have any reasonable or bonafide necessity. He has further submitted that the landlord has to satisfy to the court that his need continues till the final decree of eviction is passed by the court and since Satish Chandra has been permanently employed and he had not deposed before the trial court after the remand that he still wanted to do this business in the suit premises and did not want to continue in service. There is no evidence on record that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the observations of the Supreme Court in the authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellant are based on the peculiar facts of those cases and do not lay down a general rule so as to apply to the facts of this case as well. He has submitted that the finding regarding bonafide and reasonable need and comparative hardship are both findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, and therefore, sitting in second appeal this court should not interfere. He has placed reliance on the following authorities (5) Deity Pattabhiramswamy v. S. Hanymayya & other (AIR 1959 SC 57) , (6) Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh & others (AIR 1961 SC 1097) , ( 7) Ramchandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another (AIR 1963 SC 302) ; (8) Mst. Kharbuja Kour v. Jang Bahad