The landlord is the best judge of his need and the court cannot advise the landlord to compromise his necessity for the benefit of the tenant.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-defendant-tenant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, challenging the decree for eviction passed in respect of his rented shop on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity by the Court of Additional District Judge No.4, Sikar in first appeal No.24/2015 vide judgment dated 2.2.2019 and resultantly, the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2015 passed in civil suit No.65/2002 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sikar dismissing plaintiff's suit for eviction, has been set aside.

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

3. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that shop in question situated at Mochiwada Raod, Sikar is in tenancy of appellant- defendant since 1960. Respondents-plaintiffs purchased the suit shop through registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 along with whole property wherein shop in question is situated, from its owner and landlord of appellant namely Kishan Lal. Appellant- defendant does not dispute that the transfer of his tenanted shop to respondent-plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 and attorn respondent-plaintiff as his landlord and continue to pay the rent to him. After purchasing the property, the respondent-plaintiff instituted civil suit after eviction, invoking provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act of 1950"). The suit was instituted seeking eviction on the ground of default, bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop but plaintiff for his own business and material alteration also claimed for fixation of standard rent in respect of rented shop.

4. Learned trial Court, after holding full-fledged trial and on appreciation of evidence of both parties, vide judgment dated 13.3.2015 dismissed the civil suit.

5. Plaintiff preferred first appeal against judgment and decree dated 13.3.2015. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment impugned dated 2.2.2019, has granted decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of plaintiff, though grounds of default and material alteration have been decided against plaintiff. The First Appellate Court granted two months time to appellant-defendant to vacate and handover the possession of rented shop to plaintiff from the date of judgment. This judgment and decree for eviction dated 2.2.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court has been assailed by appellant-defendant by way of instant second appeal.

6. At the outset, it may be noticed that it is not in dispute that respondent-plaintiff is landlord of appellant-defendant and shop in question is in tenancy of appellant-defendant since year 1960. It has also come on record that appellant-defendant is having two shops. The first Appellate Court, has taken into consideration statements of plaintiff Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-3. The first Appellate Court has also appreciated the evidence of defendants Nand Lal Dw-1 as also his witness Vinod Dw-2. The first Appellate Court, on the basis of appreciation of evidence of both parties, has recorded a fact finding that plaintiff is in need of shop in question and he purchased the shop for carrying out his own business.

7. The first Appellate Court has recorded fact findings that defendant-tenant, in his evidence has miserably failed to demolish the case of plaintiff for bonafide and reasonable necessity rather defendant has only stated that he has two sons and require both shops. Defendant has adduced evidence that his need of rented shop is greater than plaintiff. The first Appellate Court, placing reliance upon settled proposition of law that landlord is the best judge of his need, has passed the decree for eviction on the basis of bona fide necessity. The first Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the issue of comparative hardship and partial eviction.

8. Counsel for appellant, during course of argument has fairly submitted that appellant is not agreeable for seeking any time to vacate t