The subsequent event of the son joining a job did not extinguish the landlord's necessity for the rented shop, and the court restored the decree for eviction passed by the trial court based on this principle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been preferred by and on behalf of plaintiff-landlord-appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1999 passed in Civil First No.24/1995 by the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal, filed by respondent-tenant, the first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.6/1970 (22/1994) by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop for his son, after comparing comparative hardships between the landlord and the tenant and consequently, the civil suit for eviction has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant at length, perused the judgments and record.

3. It appears from perusal of record that initially notices of this second appeal were issued to the respondent-defendant-tenant vide order dated 13.05.1999. Respondent-Defendant-Ram Manohar put in appearance through advocate. Thereafter, having heard learned counsel for both parties, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st September, 2006 admitted this appeal for consideration on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether, the mere fact that the landlord who wanted a commercial premises for starting his own business can be said to have lost his necessity if after remaining unemployed for very long time say 11 years during the pendency of the suit joined service for his livelihood and in due course is confirmed in the service?”

4. Appellant-plaintiff Dr. Narain Das passed away during pendency of second appeal, hence his legal representatives came on record and pursued this appeal. Thereafter, sole respondent-defendant-tenant Ram Manohar passed away on 28.06.2012. From the side of appellant, application was filed that deceased respondent Ram Manohar is survived by legal representatives of his wife Shakuntala Devi and grand son Mehul Khandelwal who may be substituted as his legal representatives in this second appeal to pursue proceedings of the appeal but it was averred that wife and grand son of deceased respondent never carrying on any business in the rented shop during the life time or up to death of respondent Ram Manohar and therefore, tenancy rights do not devolve upon the surviving legal heirs. Notices of the application to surviving legal representatives of deceased respondent were issued.

As per office report, notices were duly served but no one appeared on their behalf. Application for taking legal representatives of deceased respondent Ram Manohar was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2016 and respondent No.1/1 and 1/2 were substituted in his place. Again notices were issued to the substituted respondent No.1/1 and 1/2, which were served as per office report. Order dated 14.11.2017 goes to show that advocate who appeared for respondent-defendant Ram Manohar, put in appearance for his legal representatives as well and on the joint request of learned counsel for both parties, the matter was sent before the Mediation Center to explore possibility of amicable settlement through Mediator. Thereafter on 13.12.2017, learned counsel for respondents again sought time to explore possibility of amicable settlement but mediation proceedings remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.2018, in the presence of learned counsel for both parties, application for early hearing of second appeal was allowed. On next date i.e. 08.10.2018, counsel appearing for respondents No.1/1 and 1/2 pleaded no instructions and thereafter, the court notices were ordered to be issued to respondents. As per office report, on 31.10.2018 notices served yet no one appeared on behalf of respondents.

5. It has also revealed from the record that during pendency of this second appeal during life time of original respondent-R