JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

This is a Civil Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court) in the Civil First Appeal titled “Madan Lal (Dead) through legal representatives versus Sudershna Sharma (Dead) through legal representatives” whereby the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree of eviction dated 07.09.2013 passed by the Sub-Judge, Katra (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial court) in the civil suit, titled, “Sudershana Sharma and others vs. Madan Lal”.

2. As the instant appeal is the Civil Second Appeal, the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law, for consideration of this Court:-

“(A) Whether appellate court was required to direct the trial court to frame the following additional issues in light of its having permitted to amend the written statement?

(a) Whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit shop for his own use and her son namely, Himanshu Sharma’s use keeping in view of subsequent construction of guest house at Katra by plaintiff No. 1 who was herself a Govt. employee unable to personally run the business? OPP

(b) Whether the defendant No. 1 (tenant) would suffer greater hardship in the event of being evicted than the hardship suffered by which the plaintiff No. 2/land lord would suffer in the event eviction being denied? OPP.

(B) Whether the ratio of Apex Court judgment in Partap Raj Tanwani and anr. Vs. Uttam Chand and anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 490 has been wrongly appreciated by the appellate Court on the ground of subsequent event of construction of guest house had materially changed the ground of relief.

(C) Whether appellate Court having not taken note of the observations made in Gaya Parshad vs. Pradeep Srivastava reported in (2001) 2 SCC 604 that subsequent events which overshadow the genuineness of land lords are not to be ignored.

(D) Whether the observation of trial court’s claim of lean periods of pilgrimage of Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine reflects that the poor state of mind has not gone unobserved by appellate Court?”

3. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant argued only on the issue that the learned trial court has erred in not framing an additional issue with regard to subsequent events those were pleaded by the appellant by way of amendment of written statement and he further argued that the necessity of the respondent Nos. 1-3 came to an end due to happening of events during the pendency of the suit.

4. Per contra, Mr. Rohit Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-3 vehemently argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was permitted to amend the written statement and bring on record the subsequent events and thereafter the predecessor-in-interest of appellant led additional evidence and also respondent Nos. 1-3 led evidence in rebuttal thereof and both the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have considered the subsequent events while passing their respective judgments. He further submitted that there are concurrent findings of the facts by both the courts and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, as such, this appeal is not maintainable.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1-3 i.e. Sudershan Sharma had initially filed a suit for eviction against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 12, namely, Madan Lal in the year 1998, for his eviction from the shop situated at Katra on the ground that the suit shop was required by him for augmenting his income as he had retired from the Government service and further for the purpose of settlement of his son i.e. respondent No. 2 herein. The suit shop was taken on rent by the father of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in the yea