G.M.Lodha, J. - (1.) This is a Civil Second Appeal by the landlord whose suit has been dismissed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. Although the specific requirement was not specified in the plaint, but in the course of evidence it was claimed that the plaintiff who was a qualified doctor would start a dispensary in the disputed shop after retirement.
(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit, but it was dismissed by the first appellate Court holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove bona fide and reasonable necessity.
(3.) The first appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove bona fide and reasonable necessity on account of the following read sons: (1) That the plaintiff has not specified the nature of the requirement in the plaint. (2) That the plaintiff is not specific about the purpose for which he wants the shop to be vacated. (3) That the plaintiff in his examination in chief stated that he required the premises for starting dispensary, but he admitted in cross-examination that he used to sit at sweetmeat shop of his father and on account of his father's death that shop is lying closed, although it is suitable for business of sweetmeats, and in that shop he would carry on business of sweetmeats. ;