N.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants who are legal representatives of original defendant tenant Megh Raj against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court whereby, by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed for eviction from the suit shop. The suit has been decreed solely on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity, by also deciding the questions of comparative hardship and partial eviction in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that it is was back on 10.8.1976 that the deceased plaintiff Bherulal had filed present suit against the deceased defendant tenant Meghraj for eviction from suit shop situated at 242, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of deceased plaintiff. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 28.10.1980, appeal against that decree also failed on 18.8.1983. While during pendency of the second appeal, on death of the plaintiff the suit was amended which amendment was allowed vide order dt. 11.9.1991 and by setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the case was remanded to the learned trial court to proceed in accordance with law. After such remand, trial was commenced wherein, on 2.2.1994 with consent of the parties an additional issue being issue No.2A was framed regarding the question as to whether the suit premises are reasonably and bona fide required by Chandra Prakash for himself and his family members. Thereafter the parties led their evidence. The learned trial court after completing the fresh trial, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dt. 27.9.1995. The learned trial court in its judgment found issue Nos. 2 and 2A in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit shop for the plaintiff and his family members. However by deciding issue No.3 relating to comparative hardship against the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed.
(3.) ON appeal by the plaintiff, the learned lower Appellate Court, affirmed the findings of the learned trial court on the question of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff for himself and his family members and reversed the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.3 by discussing the issue in detail running into as many as 20 paragraphs and then after discussing the question of partial eviction, also held In favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly the plaintiff's suit has been decreed as above.;