Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's -appellant's (hereinafter the plaintiff) second appeal under Section 100 CPC filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the plaintiff's suit for eviction of the defendant -respondent (hereinafter 'the defendant') on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity had been decreed. Consequently, presently the plaintiffs suit for eviction stands dismissed. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate court as also the judgment and decree of the trial court.
(2.) SECTION 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') provides that a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant from the tenanted premises on the ground of the tenanted premises being reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for his own use or that of his family. The learned first appellate court on the evidence on record on the issue has concluded that the tenanted premises were not bona fide and reasonably required for the son of the plaintiff -landlord Smt. Bhagwani as the case set up in the plaint. The first appellate court has held that the requirement of the plaintiff -landlord was not bona fide as the suit had been filed on the false ground of Gurudas, the son of the plaintiff -landlord being unemployed and the shop being required for him. From the evidence on record, the first appellate court found as a fact that at the time of filing of the suit in 1994, the son of the plaintiff -landlord was actually employed albeit under suspension. While recording that the bona fide and reasonable need of a plaintiff -landlord could be based on future needs, the first appellate court held that this would however not entitle the plaintiff -landlord to set up a case on the false averment of her son being unemployed when in fact he was not unemployed at the time of filing of the suit albeit under suspension. In my considered opinion, the ground for eviction of a tenant under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 is inter alia not only required to be reasonable but also bona fide. The word "bona fide" would entail the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant with clean hands and coming before the court with a clean heart without even a strain of falsity. From the evidence on record, it having been found that the plaintiff -landlord had set up a case on false facts, the learned first appellate court has rightly held that the judgment and decree of the trial court was liable to be reversed. It is trite that the first appellate court is a final court of fact as also of law. In the present case, the conclusion of the first appellate court both on facts and law with regard to the plaintiff -landlord not having any bona fide and reasonable necessity for her son employed at the time of filing of the suit cannot be faulted in view of the falsity of the case set up. No perversity or misdirection in law can be attributed to the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. In my considered opinion, the error by the trial court in decreeing the plaintiff's eviction suit on the ground of bona fide and reasonable need in spite of the falsity of the plaintiff's case as laid, has rightly been corrected by the first appellate court. No substantial question of law is made out in this second appeal. Consequently, this second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed.;