Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 1169
[Citation : 2010(2) RLW 1647 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
LRs. of Khayali Ram Vs. Mahaveer Prasad (Panwar, J.)
HON'BLE H.R. PANWAR, J.
LRs. of Khayali Ram
Versus
Mahaveer Prasad
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 181 of 2003, decided on 15.10.2009
R.K. Singhal, for Appellants;
R.K. Thanvi, for Respondent
Headnote:Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Sec. 13 and C.P.C., Sec. 100 — Second appeal — Suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity — Want to run a grocery shop — Dismissed on the ground of lack of experience of the business — Held — Experience in the business is not a precondition under any statute — Even no experience therefore may be necessary — What the Court is required to consider is that the land-lord has proved his bonafide requirement to evict the tenant for his own purpose — Unless an appropriate case is made out, the Court may not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority — Requirement must be some thing more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. (Paras 20, 21)
jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k fu;U=.k ,oa csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk 13 ,oa fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 100 & f}rh; vihy & rdZ laxr ,oa ln~Hkkoh vko';drk ds vk/kkj ij csn[kyh gsrq okn & fdjk.kk dh nqdku pykuk pkgrk gS & bl O;olk; esa vuqHko ds vHkko ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fdlh Hkh fo/kku ds vUrxZr O;olk; esa vuqHko dksbZ iwoZ 'krZ ugha gS & ;gka rd fd mlds fy, fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vuqHko dh vko';drk ugha gks ldrh & ftl ckr ij U;k;ky; dks fopkj djus dh vko';drk gS og gS fd x`g Lokeh us vius Lo;a ds iz;kstukFkZ fdjk;snkj dks csn[ky djus gsrq viuh lnHkkoh vko';drk lkfcr dj nh gS & tc rd dksbZ leqfpr ekeyk LFkkfir ugha dj fn;k tkrk rc rd U;k;ky; vihyh; izkf/kdkjh }kjk fudkys x;s rF; ds fu"d"kZ esa fo/u ugha Mky ldrk& vko';drk dsoy bPNk ek= ls vf/kd l'kDr gksuh pkfg;s ysfdu fuf'pr :i ls ck/;dkjh ;k vuU; ;k l[r vko';drk gksuk t:jh ughaA ¼in la[;k 20] 21½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that respondent Mahaveer Prasad filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction before the trial Court seeking decree of eviction of Shop No. 103, Jawahar Market, Sriganganagar and restraining the original tenant Khayali Ram from causing any damage to tenanted shop on the ground that the respondent landlord needs the rented shop for his reasonable and personal bonafide necessity in order to run Provision Shop (Pansari Shop). The original tenant filed written statement to the suit. The trial Court framed as many as six issues. The parties led evidence and by judgment and decree dated 10.5.1999, the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff came to be dismissed, against which the respondent filed a regular first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate court reversed the finding of trial Court by the judgment and decree impugned dated 20.5.2003. Hence this second appeal.
3. This appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the first appellate Court misread the FIR No. 85/94 and wrongly reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff and plaintiff's son had no good relations and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have been expected to produce account books of the Shop No. 55 and the plaintiff was not in position to examine his own son in support of his case?
(ii) Whether the first appellate Court committed illegality in holding that the appellant's plea, that they were working with the deceased tenant in the shop in dispute, cannot be accepted?
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that FIR No. 85/94 came to be lodged by the respondent landlord against original tenant Khayali Ram and other persons namely Kashiram Santlal, Devilal etc. with police station Kotwall, Sriganganagar on 27.2.1994 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 341 IPC alleging therein that there were two shops, one of which is rented to tenant Khayali Ram, however, the roof of the said shop is not a part of tenement nor the staircase adjacent to other shop. It was alleged that on 27.2.1994 at about 9.00 A.M. when respondent landlord went to his shop, he noticed that at the staircase leading to roof of Shop No. 103 a lock was put there and the door was closed. When he reached on the roof of the shop, he found the accused persons named in the FIR namely Khayali Ram and three others with one Mason and two labourers and they were removing the bricks from the roof and caused damage to the roof of the shop etc. According to learned counsel for the appellants, on the date of lodging of the report, respondent landlord was running business in the shop adjacent to the disputed shop and therefore, the respondent landlord had no personal necessity of the shop much less reasonable and bonafide. It is further contended that while dismissing the suit, the trial Court has considered the said FIR Ex. A-2 but the first appellate Court misread the said FIR while reversing the finding of the trial Court. Counsel for the appellants further contended that the first appellate court fell in error in not accepting the plea of the appellants tenants who are legal representatives of the original tenant that they were working with the deceased original tenant on the disputed shop during the life time of the original tenant. Learned counsel fo
