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 bonafide 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 bonafide and reasonable necessity. The first appellate Court as of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove bonafide and reasonable necessity on account of the following reasons :- (1) That the plaintiff has not specified the nature of the requirement in the plaint. (2) That the plaintiff has 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 on sweet-meats shop of his father and on account of his father's death that shop is lying closed although it is suitable for business of sweet-meats, and in that shop he would carry on business of sweet-meats.
(3.) THE first appellate Court was also of the opinion that the plaintiff having become unsuccessful in the earlier eviction suit, which was based on the ground of material alteration, has filed this suit within three months of the dismissal of the earlier suit.;