1. - This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- landlord-Ahmed Farooq s/o Hazi Mohd. & his four sons Abdulla Farooq, Abdulla Haroon, legal representatives of predeceased son Abdulla Salam and Abdul Tahir against the respondent defendant-tenant Harish Chandra s/o Umrao Chand and others, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3/12/1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/87 reversing the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court in eviction suit No. 4/85 (Ahmed Farooq & Ors. v. Harish Chandra & ors.) filed by the plaintiff landlords in the year 1985 in respect of suit shop No. 11 situated in Abdulla Building 'A', Station Road, Jodhpur, which was intially let out to defendant tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 40/- per month and defendant tenant continued to occupy the said shop at the same rent of Rs. 40/- though the trial court fixed the mesne profits at Rs. 100/- per month while decreeing the suit No. 4/85 on 28/3/1987. The plaintiff landlords filed the eviction suit inter alia on the ground that default in payment of rent and bonafide necessity for setting up the crockery business for the son of plaintiff Ahmed Farooq, namely; Abdulla Farooq, who was 25 years of age at the time of filing suit in the year 1985 and is now about 52 years of age. Usual amendments in the pleadings, appeal and revision against interim orders prolonged the trial and in the course of first appeal filed by the tenant, namely Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/87 (Harish Chandra & anr. v. Ahmed Farooq & Ors.), which came to be allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 3/12/1996 by which the eviction decree of trial court was reversed and thus being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff landlords have preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code on 13/2/1997 in this Court in which, while admitting the present second appeal, the coordinate bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law on 19/2/1997:-

"(1) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court on the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity is vitiated when it did not care to discuss and deal with the well considered finding of the Trial Court, which held that the shop in question is required by the plaintiff, Abdulla Farooq for carrying on his business of selling utencils and crockery, reasonably and bonafidely.

(2) Whether the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court on the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity is vitiated when the court said as to why the plaintiff Abdulla Farooq did not carry on the Hotel business, instead of selling utensils and crockery on the first floor. In other words can court ask the plaintiffs to carry on a different business than what he proposed to do.

(3) Whether the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is wrong when it fixed the standard rent at Rs. 50/- per month by misconstruing the rent note and in holding that rent was Rs. 20/- per month on 1.1.62.

(4) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the shop vacated by legal representatives of Dan Mal has been let out to Shri Mohan Lal at a rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month by misreading evidence."

2. The bone of contention between the parties and the ground on which the appellate court has reversed the eviction decree while deciding issue No. 1, 1-A and 1-B at page 10 to 18 of its impugned judgment are two fold (i) that the plaintiff landlord had the first floor space of five rooms available in Abdulla Building 'B' situated at Station Road in front of Abdulla Building 'A' in which the suit shops No. 11 on the ground floor are situated and the plaintiff landlord could use the said first floor space in Abdulla Building 'B' for setting up the crockery business of Abdulla Farooq in these premises, which was available at the time of filing of the suit itself, but the wife of the appellant landlord No. 1 Ahmed Farooq and mother of four