LODHA, J -This is a defendant-tenants second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from a shop. The tenancy is admitted.

2. The suit for eviction is based on two grounds, viz. (1) default on the part of the tenant in paying rent; and (2) reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the land-lord. Both the lower courts have accepted the plaintiffs version that the shop in question is required by the plaintiff for his son, who wishes to carry on business in that shop. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed this finding on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and there is a clear variance in pleading and proof. He has, therefore, contended that the finding of the learned District Judge on this point is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of personal necessity has further contended that the defendant had admittedly committed default in payment of rent and thereafter had not complied with sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be called the Act) and, therefore, his defence should be struck out under sec. 13(6) of the Act.

4. I shall first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity for the shop. It is urged by him that in the plaint it has been stated in para 3(ga) that the shop in question is required by the plaintiff Suleman for his personal necessity, whereas in the course of evidence the plaintiff has tried to prove that the shop is required by the plaintiffs son Gafoor. Then it is argued that Gafoor (P.W. 1) has stated that he would do business either in cycles or in Kirana in this shop, whereas Suleman (P.W. 5) states that Gafoor would do business either in bicycles or of dyeing (rangai). Nanoo (P.W. 2) is the son-in-law of the plaintiff and states that Gafoor is at present employed on a salary of Rs. 60/- p.m. in a flour mill. In cross examination he has, however, stated that Gafoor wants to do business in Kirana. Gheesoo (P.W. 3) has stated that the shop in question is required by Suleman, who is living with his son Gafoor and that. Suleman will do some business in this shop. In cross-examination this witness states that he does not know what would Gafoor do with this shop? Tulsiram (P.W. 4) is silent on the point. The defendant, however, has not led any evidence. It is submitted by Shri Prakash Chandra on behalf of the respondent that the plaintiff is living with one of his sons Gafoor. The other sons of the plaintiff have separated from him. In these circumstances, he argued, that the plaintiff has mentioned that the shop in question is required for his personal necessity. He submitted that personal necessity includes the necessity of the landlord himself as well as members of his family. According to him, if the allegation in the plaint is read in that light, it cannot be said that there has been any departure from the allegations made in the plaint.

5. The averment in the plaint for personal necessity, in my opinion, is undoubtedly vague and it was the duty of the plaintiff to have stated in specific terms that the shop in question is required by his son Gafoor, who was living with him, to carry on a particular business. The evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding the type of business, which Gafoor wants to carry on in his shop, is also vague and indefinite in as much as Gafoor himself said that he would carry on business either in cycles or in Kirana, whereas plaintiff Suleman (P.W. 5) states that Gafoor would carry on business either in bicycles or in dyeing. The learned District Judge has observed that it is not at all necessary for the plaintiff to show as to what particular business he would carry on in the shop and that he may keep his mind open till

Click Here to Read the rest of this document