Honble GOYAL, J.–This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant- tenant against the judgment and decree dated 17/7/2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed on 16/8/1994 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer City (North), Ajmer.

(2). The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff/landlord/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff) filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 21/5/1987 with the averments that the defendant-tenant-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as defendant) is the tenant in the suit premises; house No. B1 at Ajmer on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- . The tenancy was oral. The suit for eviction was based on various grounds including the default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months and reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff giving details of the said grounds in the plaint.

(3). The defendant in his written statement, submitted on 1/6/1988, while admitting himself to be tenant since 1982 denied all the grounds of eviction with a further plea that the plaintiff intends to sell the suit premises and thus his requirement is neither reasonable nor bonafide.

(4). 11 issues were framed on 4/4/1989. Evidence of the parties was recorded and the learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 16/8/1994 decided issues No. 1, 3 to 5 & 8 relating to suit premises on tenancy, reasonable and bonafide requirement, comparative hardship, partial eviction and requirement for further construction in favour of the plaintiff while remaining issues No. 2, 6, 7, 9 & 10 relating to default in payment of rent, change in use of suit premises, subletting and material alterations diminishing the value of the suit premises were decided in favour of the defendant. In the result on the basis of the decisions of issues No. 3 to 5 decree of eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(5). Civil Regular First Appeal No. 162/1994 filed by the defendant was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 17/7/2001.

(6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Following questions of law were framed on 14/3/2002.

1. Whether where a Tenant has filed an affidavit of his witness with reference to the orders of the Honble High Court after making an oral application to grant time to file the same and where the learned First Appellate Court has not only granted his oral application, after registering it as the new order, but after that the tenant has filed the affidavit and the landlord has also been asked to file his counter affidavit on the next date, which he did not, whether under these circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court can refuse to consider this affidavit on the ground that the tenant has filed only the affidavit, but not alongwith a written application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC? If not, what will be its effect ?

2. Whether where there have been non consideration of the relevant evidence, the finding would be vitiated ?

3. Whether where the findings of the Courts below are perverse, unreasonable and are factually based on no evidence, these are to be set aside ?

4. Whether where there have been gross misappreciation of evidence, which goes to the root of the matter, the concurrent findings of fact should be interfered ?

5. Whether mere desire to liver independently in a different city away from his sons and his family does constitute a bonafide need/requirement, specially when the case of the Landlord has been that he desires to live in the disputed house with his family and in his family there are his 2 sons, his wife and he himself only ?

6. Whether bonafide need must be judged on an objective view point and not by mere assertion or denial, i.e. on subjective view point; and where the objectivity is lost, it will amount a mistake of law in reaching a just conclusion and will require interference ?

7. Whether where the conclusion is such that any reasonable pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document