- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant-defendant.
(2.) BOTH the courts below have concurrently decreed the plaintiffs' suit for eviction of the appellant-defendant from the shop in question on the ground of bonafide need of the respondents- plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. Mahesh Khyani, urged that need as claimed initially in the plaint was for three brothers, however, during the course of evidence of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs came with a case that plaintiff- Pawan Kumar wants to run grocery shop in the suit shop. He, therefore, submitted that without there being any pleadings with regard to need of the suit shop for starting business for one of the family member, the decree of eviction deserves to be set aside and the findings about the bonafide need deserves to be reversed. He relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh K. Aggarwala & Co. Vs. Canbank Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2010 (3) Civil Court Cases 305 (SC) and decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Vs. Bhagwan Das & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 770, wherein it was held that no averment in the plaint that 'B' is member of family of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not given details of his family or family members thereof and eviction could not be ordered for the alleged bonafide need of 'B'. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the present case. The pleadings made by the plaintiffs-respondents are presently for the bonafide need of the shop in question for all three brothers to set-up a different business. It was also found that need of Pawan Kumar was established by showing that he had no proprietorship nor partnership interest in other family business and, therefore, to start his own independent business, the shop in question was required. On the basis of these pleadings, two courts below have concurrently accepted the bonafide need and thus the finds of fact cannot be said to be perverse in any manner so to as give substantial questions of law. The findings with regard to bonafide need of the landlord are generally findings of fact and a very limited interference can be made in the second appeal, which lies only by substantial question of law and, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below could not be said to be perverse. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant and upon perusal of the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, this Court finds no substantial question of law to be arising in the matter as finding of courts below are findings of facts based on cogent and based on relevant evidence. Consequently, the present second appeal of defendant- appellant is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The execution has already taken place and possession of the suit shop has already been handed over to the plaintiffs.;