The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove bonafide and reasonable necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-defendant-tenant (hereinafter referred as ’tenant’) has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2000 passed in Civil first appeal No.46/1998 by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 17.04.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.72/1997 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer.

2. On perusal of record, it transpires that the rented premise is a shop situated at Sarvahi Darwaja, Kishangarh, Ajmer which was in tenancy of tenant at the rate of Rs.35/- per month. On 19.11.1993, respondent-landlord instituted civil suit for eviction on the ground of default, bonafide and reasonable necessity under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1950’).

3. The tenant has admitted his tenancy, however, disputed the ground of eviction and contested the eviction suit.

4. The trial Court, after recording evidence of both parties vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.1998, decreed eviction suit on the ground of bonafide and personal necessity. Though, the tenant was held defaulter in payment of rent, however, beneficial of first default was extended.

5. The tenant by way of filing first appeal, assailed the eviction decree passed on the ground of bonafide and personal necessity. The first Appellate Court affirmed the necessity of rented shop for plaintiff’s son, to start business of motor parts in the rented shop and necessity was found as bonafide and reasonable. Accordingly, the first appeal was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 06.09.2000.

6. Against concurrent finding of fact on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity, this second appeal has been filed.

7. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2000 admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the first appellate Court could have disposed of the appeal without discussing and appreciating the evidence on record perfunctorily by only posing questions and recording the answers to the questions?

(2) Whether the findings of the first appellate Court are vitiated because of the Cavalier approach adopted by it in disposal of the appeal?

8. Heard counsel for both parties, perused the impugned judgments and record.

9. It is no more res-integra that the issue of bonafide, reasonable necessity is a question of fact which requires appreciation of evidence and unless and until the fact findings of the trial Court and/ or first Appellate Court, on the issue of bonafide necessity, suffer from perversity or grave illegality so as to lead miscarriage of justice, did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

10. The proposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prasad Rajak vs. Nand Kumar & Bros. And Anr. reported in (1998) 6 SCC 748 and H.K. Sharma Vs. Ram Lal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 153 and further confirmed in other umpteen number of judgments.

11. On examination of pleadings, evidence and material on record of the present case at hand, it transpires that landlord instituted an eviction suit alleging the necessity of rented shop for his son to start business of motor parts.

12. The issue was examined by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. The plaintiff got recorded his own statement as well as statement of PW-2 Hanuman Prasad. In counter, defendant produced himself as DW.

13. On appreciation of evidence, plaintiff’s necessity has been held to be bonafide and reasonable in favour of landlord.

14. The issue of partial eviction and comparative hardship were also considered and decided in favour of the landlord.

15. The issue of default was also decided in favour of landlord, however, since tenant deposited due rent and monthly rent regularly in compliance of order dated 13.08.1996, the benefit of first default under Section 13 (6) of the Act of 1950 was extended. Th