Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit against the defendants (appellants) for ejectment of Shop No.46 situated in Jawahar Market, Kota and arrear of rents alleging that he purchased it on 04.06.1991 through a registered sale deed. At that time, Ratan Lal, the father of the defendants, was a tenant in the shop on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. The plaintiff and erstwhile owner of the shop, Bishan Lal, informed Ratan Lal that the shop has been sold to the plaintiff and he has become the owner of the shop. Even thereafter Ratan Lal did not pay the rent of the shop to the plaintiff. After the death of Ratan Lal, the defendants are in possession of the shop. The defendants have committed default by not paying rent since June 1991. The plaintiff is an educated unemployed young man and the said shop is needed by him for starting a readymade garment business. He has no other shop for conducting business. Thus, the shop is a bonafide and reasonable need of the plaintiff for his own personal use. He sent registered notices for vacating the shop to the defendants through his counsel but they were returned with the endorsements of refusal. The defendants have other shops situated in Retwali and Shivpura available to them. The plaintiff will suffer greater hardship if the shop is not vacated. Hence, the plaintiff prayed that the decree for ejectment of the suit shop along with Rs.2250/- as arrears of rent may be passed against the defendants. The defendants, in their written statement, admitted tenancy but denied that they have committed default in payment of rent. It was submitted that when the plaintiff did not accept rent the same was deposited under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the period from 11.07.1991 to 10.07.1992. The plaintiff does not require the suit shop for starting a business of readymade garments as he has three other shops and the business can also be conducted from the double storied house of the plaintiff. The defendant nos.1 and 2 and their mother depend on the income from the suit shop and they have no other source of livelihood. The defendant no.3 is carrying on his separate business as grain merchant in the name of 'Ramesh Brothers' right from their father's time. The suit has been filed vexatiously and deserves to be dismissed.

2. On the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed on 18.04.1994 by the learned trial Court. An additional issue was also framed on 03.04.1997. The plaintiff Parasram PW-1 examined himself and produced Gyan Chand PW-2 and Ashok Kumar PW-3. Rajendra Kumar DW-1, Ramesh DW-2, Satyanarayan DW-3 and Ramesh Kumar DW-4 were examined on behalf of the defendants. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue nos.1, 4 and 6 regarding default, effect of earlier suit and partial ejectment against the plaintiff while issue nos.2 and 3 regarding bonafide personal reasonable need and comparative hardship were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 10.04.1996. The defendants preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 08.10.1998. Hence, the appellants approached this Court by filing this second appeal.

3. After hearing the parties, this appeal was admitted on 04.01.1999 and the following substantial question of law was framed:-

“Whether the requirement of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises could be held to be bonafide and reasonable when he has purchased the suit premises in occupation of the tenant particularly when his requirement was much more before the purchase”.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties carefully and gone through the record. Before averting to the aforesaid substantial question of law I deem it necessary to consider the various applications submitted by the parties during the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document