Modi, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for rent and ejectment and arises under circumstances presently to be mentioned.

2. The plaintiffs case was that he had purchased the suit house from Mst. Govindi Bai widow of one Laxmansingh by a registered sale-deed (Ex.1) dated the 30th July, 1956, and that the defendant was continuing as a tenant therein from before paying a rent of Rs. 3/- per mensem. The plaintiffs case further was that soon after the sale, Mst. Govindi Bai gave a notice to the defendant that she had sold the house to the plaintiff and the defendant should thenceforward pay the rent to the plaintiff, which fact is accepted by the defendant himself. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 9/- was due from the defendant as rent upto the 31st October, 1956. On the 5th October, 1956, the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant to quit the suit house any pay the arrears of rent due from him, and there is no dispute about this notice. The plaintiffs case then was that he was living in a rented house and therefore he had a bona fide and reasonable necessity to occupy the suit house and consequently he brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for the recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 9/- and for ejectment on the 8th November, 1956.

3. The defendant resisted the suit. His case, in so far as it is material for the purposes of the present appeal, was that he was a tenant of Mst. Govindi Bais husband Laxmansingh at the rate of Rs. 2/8/- per mensem only but he did not accept the fact that on Laxmansinghs death his widow Mst. Govindi Bai had sold the suit house to the plaintiff and consequently he contended that the latter had no right to bring the suit. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had any bonafide and reasonable necessity to occupy the house in suit.

4. The trial court found that the plaintiff had purchased the suit house from Mst. Govindi Bai by a sale deed dated the 30th July, 1956, Ex. 1, and therefore, he was the owner of the house. That court, however, held against the plaintiff on the question of his bonafide and reasonable personal necessity for the occupation of the suit house. It also found that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 2/8/-per mensem and consequently decreed the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 7/8/- as arrears of rent, but dismissed it so far as ejectment was concerned. Both parties were dissatisfied with this judgment. The plaintiff filed an appeal against it in which he prayed that ejectment should also have been ordered in his favour. The defendant filed a cross-objection praying for the entire dismissal of the suit. The learned Civil Judge, allowed the cross-objection and dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs throughout, and, in that view of the matter, the plaintiffs appeal stood automatically dismissed. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff has now come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. Two principal questions have been raised before me in this appeal. The first is that the learned Civil Judge had fallen into a serious error of law in holding that the plaintiff laid failed to prove the execution of the sale deed of the house in question by Mst. Govindi Bai in favour of the plaintiff and, on that score, dismissing his entire suit. The second is that the courts below have misdirected themselves in law in deciding the question of bona fide personal necessity in the manner they did. In this connection, it has been strongly argued that the Civil Judge was entirely wrong when he held that before the plaintiff could succeed in his suit for eviction on this ground, it was necessary for him to establish his "dire necessity" for it. I now proceed to dispose of both these questions in the order in which I have set them out above. i

6. As to the question of the proof of the alleged sale-deed Ex. 1 by Mst. Govindi Bai in favour of the plaintiff, the finding of the learned Judge of the appellate court below was that the execution of the sale-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document