JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-tenant has filed this second appeal assailing the decree for eviction passed on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the shop in question to the respondent- landlord. The shop in question situated at Mewadi Bazar, Beawar and in tenancy of the appellant-defendant prior to 1982.

2. The relevant facts, as culled out from the record, are that respondent-landlord led a civil suit for eviction in relation to rented shop way back on 24.01.1987 alleging bona fide necessity of himself and later on for his son-Ashok Kumar. Initially the suit was filed against the original tenant-Panchu Lal who contested the suit and filed his written statement. The trial court, recorded the evidence of both parties and find that the landlord is having bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop. It was found that the landlord was not having any alternative shop. The trial court, after impleadment of Shri Milap Chand as legal representative of deceased-defendant tenant, continued the eviction proceedings. The trial court passed the eviction decree after appreciation of evidence of both parties on the issue of bona fide necessity of the shop in question. The first appellate court has affirmed the finding and upheld the eviction decree. Against concurrent findings of fact on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the rented shop to the respondent- landlord, the appellant tenant has filed this second appeal.

3. Since no interim stay order was passed in the present second appeal in favour of the appellant-tenant, therefore, the respondent-landlord proceeded with execution of eviction decree and the possession of rented shop has been taken by the respondent-landlord.

4. Perusal of order-sheet dated 26.05.2015, goes to show that learned counsel for appellant sought time to seek instructions from his client to pursue the appeal on merits. Thereafter the appeal listed many times and the appellant sought time to argue the appeal. Now appellant wants to pursue the appeal on merits on the substantial question of law:-

a) Since the two other sons of deceased-tenant namely, Khoob Chand and Prem Chand were alive and were impleaded as legal representative along with son Milap Chand, therefore the eviction suit had abated.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that to meet out such objections, trial court should have held an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC about the surviving legal representatives of deceased- tenant.

6. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that the findings of necessity are perverse and suffer from misreading/non- reading of evidence on record.

7. Heard learned counsel for appellant, perused the impugned judgments on record.

8. As far as the issue of abatement of the eviction suit is concerned, before the trial court, the natural son of deceased- tenant Milap Chand has been substituted in his place. It came on record that the shop in question, Milap Chand was carrying on business with his father i.e. the original tenant. There is no substantive evidence was adduced before the trial court to show that his other two sons Khoob Chand and Prem Chand were also carrying business with father-Panchu Lal. Merely asking for enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is not warranted in given facts and circumstances. Otherwise also, in order to pursue the eviction suit on the ground of bona fide and personal necessity of the landlord/landlord's son, the sufficient representation of the tenant was there through his son. Had there been a case that two other sons were also claiming tenancy rights, they could have joined the eviction proceedings.

9. As far as findings of bona fide and reasonable necessity are concerned, the same are finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises out of such findings. The first appellate court also re-heard the matter and considered the issue of bona fide and reasonable necessity after appreciation of evidence. In the case of Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & BROS an