Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction by the first appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Appeal No.23/2009 - Om Prakash vs. Jeevraj dated 23.05.2011 reversing the judgment and decree of trial court dismissing the eviction suit No.177/2000 - Om Prakash vs. Jeevraj on 22.04.2009.

2. The decree of eviction has been given on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord Om Prakash in respect of his shop measuring 9x12 ft. situated at prominent commercial area of Jodhpur at 1st B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

3. The case for eviction set up by landlord Om Prakash was that after the death of his father Jay Narayan on 22.11.1986, under an oral family partition dated 22.1.1987, the suit shop fell in his favour and at the time of such partition, he was working as a tailor with his brother in another shop under the name and style of M/s. Free India Tailors, but upon partition, his brother ousted him from the said shop and therefore, he became unemployed and consequently, he required the suit shop for starting his own business as a tailor.

4. The defendant-tenant Jeevraj is also running a tailoring shop in the suit shop in the name and style of M/s. Ajay Tailors.

5. The learned trial court did not find ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for eviction as established and consequently dismissed the suit for eviction on 22.04.2009, which suit was filed in the year 2000. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2009, the plaintiff-landlord preferred first appeal, which came to be allowed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, reversing the findings of the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court held that the bonafide necessity of the landlord was established by the landlord and consequently he was entitled to the decree for eviction. The decree was accordingly granted by the appellate court and the defendant-tenant was directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the landlord within a period of two months and to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.200/- per month.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant Mr. J.R. Patel vehemently urged that the learned appellate court has reversed the findings of the learned trial court without formulating the points for determination as mandatorily required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. He further submitted that the bonafide need of landlord Om Prakash was not established and the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the suit of the landlord. The landlord Om Prakash continued to actually work with his brother as tailor even after partition in the shop already available with them in which both of them worked in M/s. Free India Tailors and, therefore, there was no unemployment of the landlord Om Prakash and since there was admission to this effect by the landlord in his cross-examination, the decree of eviction could not have been granted by the appellate court. He further urged that an alternative accommodation became available to the plaintiff in the year 1993, which was let out to another tenant for the shop known as M/s. Deep Kala Saree Centre and in view of availability of such alternative accommodation available to the landlord, he could not claim bonafide need for the suit shop in the present suit filed in the year 2000.

7. Assailing the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground of it being laconic, without cogent reasons for reversing of trial court's judgment, the learned counsel Mr. J.R. Patel, relying upon various case laws, submitted that the appellate court has failed to assign any reasons for such reversal of judgment of trial court and it is not the mere desire or whims of the landlord, which can be said to be bonafide need of the landlord for eviction and consequently the eviction decree of the first appellate court deserves to be reversed in the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document