- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant � tenant Chandra Prakash being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd.25.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No.8/2009 � Chandra Prakash V/s Hastimal whereby the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant � tenant Chandra Prakash and affirmed the judgment and decree dtd.23.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajsamand in civil Suit No.20/1999 � Hasti Mal V/s Chandra Prakash whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff Hasti Mal for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of the plaintiff landlord.
(2.) BY concurrent decree of eviction, the learned courts below had decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff - respondent in respect of suit shop situated at Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand in which the defendant � tenant is carrying on the business of cloth shop. The need claimed by the plaintiff Hastimal for his son Sanjay was to open a cloth business only by converting the shop into a proper showroom for which the plaintiff claimed that they have sufficient financial means to establish that cloth show-room. Both the courts below have found that the the plaintiff � respondent landlord had bonafide need for the suit shop in question and therefore, directed eviction under Section 13(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. The learned counsel for the appellant- defendant - tenant Mr. Ashok Chhangani relying upon the following judgments submitted that the plaintiff landlord did not have bonafide need inasmuch as son of the plaintiff was an income tax payer and in his own statement, he has stated before the Court below that he was doing business with his father who owns 3 (three) Gangsaws marble cutting machines and had other properties also. Therefore, he submitted that such person at this level would not be expected to open a cloth show-room in the disputed premises and therefore, the courts below have erred in believing that the plaintiff � respondent had bonafide need of the suit premises in question. He relied upon the following judgments : i) Dinesh Kumar V/s Yusuf Ali � AIR 2010 SC 2679 ii) Bhagirath V/s Ram Prasad reported in 1987 RLW 555 In the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 25 has held as under: "The landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent." In the case of Bhagirath (supra), this Court in para 12 has held as under "The plaintiff has already been carrying on his business of transportation in addition to money lending and cultivation of land, whereas the tenant has got no other alternative accommodation available to him where he could shift his business. Merely because the defendant has not been able to prove by evidence that the plaintiff had filed the suit for oblique motive like increase in rent, the case of the plaintiff cannot be held to be proved for his bonafide need. Mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient. But the court has to examine objectively."
(3.) ON the side opposite, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Kaushal Sharma supported the impugned judgments and submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. He also refuted the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and urged that being an income tax payer does not mean that Sanjay would not open cloth showroom, nor he could be expected to remain unemployed till eviction of the tenant. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present second appeal filed by the defendant � tenant has no force and no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The finding of bonafide need of the landlord is a finding of fact. Normally, evidence on record is not re-appreciated in the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. which cannot be made a third round of trial in such rent control and eviction matters. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be ex-facie perverse and palpably erroneous, normally such findings of finds do not require any interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. It has been well settled by umpteen number of judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of which are referred below that the tenant cannot dictate the terms as to how the landlord should adjust his need and whether he should do particular business in the particular manner or at a particular place or not. ;