The court emphasized the importance of bona fide necessity in eviction cases and highlighted the lack of bona fides in pursuing frivolous litigation.

ORDER

1. Appellants-tenants have filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree for eviction dated 03.03.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 45/1998 by Civil Judge (SD) Bayana, Bharatpur, which has been affirmed in the First Appeal 14/2001 vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana (Bharatpur).

2. The rented premise is a shop in question situated at Railway Station, Bajariya, Bayana alleged to be in tenancy of the predecessors of defendants since 21st October, 1961. Appellants are successors of original tenant Sh. Bajanlal and Sh. Manoharlal. Respondents-landlords filed eviction suit on 21.02.1995 on the ground of default, bona fide and personal necessity and material alteration invoking the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It was alleged that defendants have neither paid nor tendered rent for the period from 06.06.1994 to 20.02.1995. The last paid rate of rent was Rs.150/- per month; the shop was purchased for the need of Sh. Purshotam, who is a married but unemployed person and wants to start a restaurant and rest-house in the rented shop. Defendant-tenants filed written statements.

3. Both parties adduced their evidence and after full fledged trial, the trial court passed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide and personal necessity on the ground of causing material alteration to the rented shop. Though, the defendants-tenants were found defaulter in payment of rent, however, a benefit of first default was accorded. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of both parties, found that Sh. Purshotam is not having any independent business and if he is helping in the joint business of family, it may not be observed that the shop is not required for starting of his own and independent business of restaurant and rest-house. According to the size and situation of the shop, the same was found suitable to be used for the purpose of restaurant and rest-house. Issues of comparative hardship and partial eviction, were also discussed independently and were decided in favour of plaintiffs-landlords. The trial court also found that the defendants have caused material alteration to the rented shop by raising a construction of pakka latrine without permission of the landlords.

4. Defendants-tenants filed the first appeal. Plaintiffs-landlords also filed cross-objections.

5. The first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence on record and affirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity, however, the ground of material alteration was not found proved and findings of issue No.6 were reversed and decided against the plaintiffs-landlords. The findings on the issue of default, comparative hardship and partial eviction were affirmed. Crossobjections of the plaintiffs-landlords in relation to issue No.5-nuisance, were rejected. Finally, the first appellate court confirmed the defendants-tenants as first defaulter, giving benefit of first default, affirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide and personal necessity. The judgment of first appellate court shows that the first appellate court has discussed each and every issue independently taking into consideration the findings of trial court and decided the issues afresh. The first appellate court assigned its own reasoning to confirm the findings on the issue of default and bona fide necessity with connecting issues of comparative hardship and partial eviction and finally, the decree for eviction passed on the ground of bona fide necessity of the rented shop was affirmed vide judgment dated 26.07.2003.

6. Appellants have preferred this second appeal, assailing the concurrent findings of fact on the ground of bona fide necessity.

7. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of courts below in respect of bona fide necessity in the rented premis