Honble GUPTA, J.–This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.97 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur City, whereby he accepted the defendants appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit which had been decreed by the Addl. Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dt. 24.8.96.

(2). Vide order dt. 22.4.98 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:-

``Whether the appellant is entitled for restoration of the premises on the ground of his bonafide necessity particularly when the trial court had decreed the suit while the first Appellate Court had reversed its finding.

(3). The short facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction of a shop, situate in Chokri Ramdhanderji, on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. It was alleged that the plaintiff needed the shop for the business of electrical goods as he had a licence of fittings. It was further alleged that Achal Singh nephew of the plaintiff lived with him as his family member and he (Achal Singh) was not satisfied with his service and, therefore, wanted to do business with the plaintiff on the suit shop. As regards the comparative hardship, it was alleged that the defendant was having other shops to run his business. In the written statement, it was denied that the need of the plaintiff was bonafide. It was also de- nied that the the defendant was having other accommodation to run his business. It was averred that the intention of the plaintiff in filing the suit is to increase the rent of the shop. The defendant also pleaded that standard rent of the shop be fixed.

(4). On the pleadings of the parties, eight issues were framed by the trial Court. A free translation of the issues no. 2 & 3, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, is al follows:-

Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff required the premises for personal, proper and bonafide necessity ?

Issue No.3. Whether there will be greater hardship to the plaintiff in comparison to the defendant if decree of eviction was not given ?

(5). Plaintiff Dan Singh entered into the witness box as PW1 and examined P.W.2 Khan Chand, P.W.3 Kanwar Singh, P.W.4 Achal Singh and P.W.5 Gurucharan Singh. In rebuttal, Bhag Singh entered into the witness box as DW 1 and examined D.W.2 Dashrath Singh, D.W.3 Laxman Dass, D.W.4 Mukesh, D.W.5 Tolaram, D.W.6 Ghanshyamdass, and D.W.7 Kartar Singh. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court found both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and eventually decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court overturned the findings on these issues and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(6). Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Appellate Court has not considered the reasonings recorded by the trial Court and has come to erroneous conclusion that the plaintiffs need is not bonafide. He canvassed that the Appellate Court could interfere in the judgment of the trial Court only when the findings arrived at by the trial court were not based on evidence or thus was misreading of evidence. Commenting on the judgment under appeal, Mr. Agarwal pointed out that the Appellate Court has not at all consi- dered the question of bonafide necessity of the nephew of the plaintiff. His submission was that the need of the nephew is the need of the plaintiff as nephew is the family member of the plaintiff. He urged that there are no inconsistencies in the statement of the plaintiff, if it is read keeping in mind that the plaintiff is an old man and it is possible that he did not understand the question. On the legal position, that in second appeal there should not be interference in the finding of the first Appellate Court even if the finding of fact is erroneous, his contention was that in a case where there are no concurrent findings of the courts on the facts, and it is found that the Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence on which the trial court relied on, it is the duty of thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document