GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS is the second appeal by the plaintiff- landlord.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction on 18. 4. 1977 with the averments that the defendant is the tenant of suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 101/ -. Eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The defendant vide written statement came out with a case that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit shop in the year 1970 on monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 101/ -. He denied the ground of eviction. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Munsif Baran, District Kota vide judgment dated 20. 5. 1988 arrived at this finding that the plaintiff's requirement of the suit shop for his son Laxmi Kumar to carry on cloth business is reasonable and bonafide and comparative hardship would be caused to him and decreed the suit. First appeal filed by the defendant was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 27. 5. 1995 by Additional District Judge, Baran. This Court framed following substantial question of law:- " Whether the findings of the first appellate Court on the points of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff as well as comparative hardship are perverse?"
(3.) SECTION 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) provides that a decree of eviction shall not be passed unless it is satisfied that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family. In para 4 of the plaint, it is averred that Dr. Jagdish Kumar is younger brother of the plaintiff, who is carrying on his clinic in rented premises and his landlord has already filed a suit for eviction. Jagdish Kumar is member of joint Hindu family of the plaintiff. Apart from, Laxmi Kumar-son of the plaintiff has become major and he wants to start cloth business. The suit shop is adjacent to the plaintiff's other shop where in the plaintiff is carrying on his Sarafa business. The plaintiff wants to convert both the shops in a show room so that plaintiff's brother Dr. Jagdish Kumar and plaintiff's son Laxmi Kumar may carry on clinic and cloth business respectively. In evidence, the plaintiff came out with the case that his brother Jagdish Kumar has constructed his own shops, hence his requirement exists no more, but the requirement of his son Laxmi Kumar still exists. P. W. 2 Laxmi Kumar stated that the suit shop is required by him to start cloth business. His statement was recorded on 25. 7. 1983. D. W. 1 Om Prakash is the defendant. According to his statement apart from one shop in possession of the plaintiff three shops of the plaintiff are on rent. Out of these three shops, one shop was let-out to Bhim Shankar during the pendency of the suit and plaintiff's son Laxmi Kumar is already working in a x-ray clinic. The Trial Court held that no doubt Laxmi Kumar is working in a x-ray clinic but that x-ray clinic belongs to his uncle Dr. Jagdish Kumar and Laxmi Kumar cannot be expected to sit idle till he gets vacant possession of the suit shop. On the basis of the statement of the plaintiff himself, the Trial Court came to this finding that the requirement of Dr. Jagdish Kumar no more exists as he has constructed his own shops but the shops constructed by Jagdish Kumar cannot be and to be available to Laxmi Kumar, that these shops are situated at hospital road, where there is no shop of cloth business, hence these shops are not suitable for cloth business, that there is no evidence to show the plaintiff's intent to enhance the rent. One of the submissions made on behalf of the defendant-tenant was that since the requirement of plaintiff's brother is no more, the plaintiff's son can establish his cloth business in the shop which is in possession of the plaintiff. Rejecting this submission the Trial Court observed that it cannot be accepted that the plaintiff himself would close his own business and thus the requirement of the plaintiff son does not stand satisfied, that it is for the plaintiff-landlord to see as to how and in what manner his requirement would be satisfied and it is not for the tenant to ask him to adjust himself in the manner suggested by him, that shop in possession of the tenant Bhim Shankar is not suitable for the cloth business as that shop is of small size. With regard to question of comparative hardship the Trial Court on the basis of the statements of D. W. 3 Purshottam, D. W. 4 Nemi Chand and D. W. 5 Dwarka Lal held that a number of shops in the market wherein the suit shop is situated are available on rent and thus the plaintiff-landlord could not be asked to go for rented premises. ;