GOYAL, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-landlord has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18. 7. 2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar while setting aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar dismissed the plaintiff-landlord's suit. THE parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.
(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 20. 7. 1985 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the suit shop was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent from 1. 12. 1982, reasonable and bonafide requirement and non-user of the premises by the defendant for last four years. The defendant in written statement while admitting himself to be the tenant in the suit shop pleaded that the real owner of the shop is Shri Phool Das. The plaintiff is relative of Shri Phool Das. The plaintiff is relative of Shri Phool Das, hence rent note was got executed by Shri Phool Das in the plaintiff's name. He denied all the grounds of eviction. Amended pleadings were also placed on record by the parties. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Judge decided issue No. 2 of non-user of the shop against the plaintiff and while deciding issue No. 1 of default in payment of rent, Issue No. 3 of reasonable and bonafide requirement, Issue No. 4 of comparative hardship and issue No. 5 of partial eviction in plaintiff's favour passed a decree of eviction.
(3.) FIRST appeal preferred by the defendant-tenant was allowed and cross objections submitted by plaintiff-landlord with regard to decision of the Trial Court on Issue No. 2 were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar vide impugned judgment dated 18. 7. 2000. The First Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court on issue No. 1 of default in payment of rent, issue No. 2 of non-user of shop and issue No. 5 of partial eviction but set aside the findings on issues No. 3 & 4 relating to reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff as well as comparative hardship. This Court framed following substantial questions of law on 3. 9. 2000. 1. Whether the appellate decree reversing the decree of the trial court on the ground of bonafide need, is vitiated by non- reading and misreading of evidence ? 2. Whether the first appellate court has failed in its duty to appreciate evidence in detail within the scope of Section 96 of the C. P. C. ? ;