N.C. SHARMA, J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated April 7, 1981 dismissing his first appeal against the decree of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur dated October 27, 1980.

2. Plaintiff Bastichand Bhansali is an Advocate practising at Jodhpur. He instituted Civil Suit No. 589 of 1976 against the respondent for his ejectment from the dismissed premises detailed and described in para No. 1 of his plaint. Ejectment of the defendant-respondent was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff requires the demised premises for the use and occupation of himself and his family and also for using it for his professional purpose as an Advocate. It was alleged that the plaintiff was residing in tenanted premises situated near Singh Pol Jodhpur. He has his office in Cloth Market also in rented premises.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant pleaded in his written statement that he was residing in the suit premises since the year 1960. He denied that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafidely required the suit premises for his personal use. It was alleged that the suit premises previously belonged to Khem Singh who had instituted Civil Suit No. 644 of 1974 against the defendant for ejectment on the ground that he needed the premises for the marriage of his daughter Dinesh. However, Dinesh was married and Khem Singh relling that he could not get the premises vacated on the ground alleged by him, he, in collusion with the plaintiff, sold the suit premises to the plaintiff. The defendant also alleged that comparative hardship to him would be greater than to the plaintiff in case a decree for ejectment was passed against him.

4. It appears from the judgment of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur that it was argued on behalf of the defendant respondent that the plaintiff was living in a rented house since the year 1973 and if the rented house was inconvenient to him, he would have made efforts to take another house on rent during the period 1973 to 1976 but he made no such efforts. It was also argued that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had sold his ancestral house on August 16, 1978 which goes to show that the alleged requirement of the plaintiff is not bona fide. It was also contended that in the letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on June 7, 1976, he had not mentioned that he required the suit premises for his office as well. All these contentions advanced by the defendant before Additional Munsiff were rejected by him while giving his findings on issue No. 1 which concerned with the requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff. The Additional Munsif stated that one cannot easily purchase or take or rent premises as and when he likes. He has to look to the size and location of the house. The Additional Munsif also observed that it was undisputed fact that the plaintiff was living in a rented premises since the year 1973 and his office was also rented room. In such circumstances, the Additional Munsif held, that if the plaintiff wanted to shift to his own house, which he had purchased, the requirement will be held to be reasonable and bona-fide. With regard to the ancestral house, it was stated that the plaintiff had only a share in it and it was insufficient to meet with his requirement. If the accommodation in the ancestral house would have been sufficient, there was no reason for the plaintiff to have resided with his family in a rented house since the year 1973. It was further held that even if the requirement for office was not accepted for the reason that the plaintiff did not mention about it in his letter dated June 7,1976, the plaintiff need for the demised premises for his own use and occupation was established. In his notice dated June 9, 1976, the plaintiff had mentioned the requirement for his office purpose as well. Thus the Additional Munsif decided issue No- 1 in favour of the plaintiff and held t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document