CHOUDHARI UDAYCHAND Vs. SETH DHARAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal. He was a tenant of a shop in which he was carrying on cloth business. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant on 13th December 1963 on the allegation that he bona fide required the shop for starting his own cloth business and that he had no other alternative accommodation to be utilised for that purpose. The suit was contested. Among other things, the bona fide need of the plaintiff for starting the business was also contested. It was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff had served him with a notice dated 9th February 1963 for enhancement of rent with effect from 30 days after the service of notice. Since the notice was served on him on 12th February 1963, the enhancement would have come into effect from 15th March 1963. The defendant, however, replied by notice dated 13th April 1963 (Exh. D-1) that the plaintiff was not entitled to increase the rent and that, therefore, he was not prepared to pay the increase. A fresh notice dated 20th May terminating the tenancy was served by the plaintiff alleging that he needed the shop for his own purpose. Thereafter, the present suit was filed.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the plaintiff was unable to prove his bona fide need for starting a cloth shop and consequently dismissed the suit for ejectment. The lower appellate Court has, however, decreed the suit.

(3.) IN second appeal the question raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that upon the facts found by the lower appellate Court the inference that the landlord had a bona fide need cannot be drawn.