Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) CIVIL suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction as filed by the plaintiff -appellant against the defendant -respondent (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barmer by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, inter alia, with the findings on reasonable and bona fide requirement and comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff -appellant. The decree so passed by the Trial Court was, however, reversed by the Additional District Judge, Barmer while allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant -tenant on 30.04.1999 and while reversing the findings on the relevant issues.
(2.) THIS second appeal preferred by the plaintiff -appellant against the judgment and decree so passed by the Appellate Court came to be admitted by this Court on 22.07.1999 while formulating the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned first appellate court set aside the finding on the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the landlord plaintiff -appellant without meeting with the cogent and convincing reasons given by the learned trial court ? In view of the only question formulated for consideration, a brief reference to the facts relevant therefore would suffice. In the suit filed on 03.01.1990, the plaintiff -appellant alleged that his father let out the suit shop to the defendant on Fagun Sudi 1, Svt.2039 on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -; that there had been a dispute in the family of the plaintiff whereupon he filed a suit for partition bearing No. 12/1989 wherein a compromise decree was passed on 16.11.1989 and whereby the suit shop came in his share. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been habitual defaulter in payment of rent and about 35 months' rent was due on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the suit shop was required by him reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of establishing his business. The plaintiff submitted that he was an educated unemployed person; that he had taken up the business of goldsmith with his father and brother for having not been able to secure any employment but now, he wanted to establish his own independent business and the suit shop was the only place available of his ownership to do so. The plaintiff also suggested another ground of eviction by amending the plaint with the allegation that the defendant had not used the suit premises continuously for six months for the purpose for which it was let out.
(3.) THE defendant, while denying the plaint averments, submitted that the shop was taken initially on a rent of Rs. 50/ -per month but then, the rent was forcibly enhanced to Rs. 75/per month. The defendant also submitted that the said suit No. 12/1989 was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his father wherein a collusive decree was obtained on the first date of hearing. The defendant denied the allegations of his default and of the plaintiff's requirement. The defendant also denied the allegation of non -user of the premises.;