Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the landlord plaintiff -Mathura Das s/o Nathu Ram Arora against the defendant tenant, his own son, Baldev Raj, who started the business in the tenanted shop situated at 99, H Block, Sriganganagar in the name & style of Block H Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. The tenancy continued from 30/6/1985 at the monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff -landlord, the father, Mr. Mathura Das seeking eviction of the suit shop measuring 31.5'x50' in the year 1986 on the ground of default in payment of rent, dilapidated condition of the suit premises and bonafide need of the landlord for settling the business of his two younger sons, namely; Jugal Kishore and Radhey Shyam. The suit was contested by the defendant tenant and both the courts below dismissed the suit of the landlord and as far as the ground of personal and bonafide need of the landlord or his family member is concerned, the findings of the court below, as noticed by this Court, are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -
(2.) THE learned trial court also refused to decide issue no. 4 relating to comparative hardship of the elder son Baldev Raj and two younger sons; Jugal Kishore and Radhey Shyam, by observing as under: - The appellate court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Sriganganagar while dismissing the appeal of the landlord (Appeal No. 30/91) vide its order dated 12/12/1995, on the issue no. 2 relating to bonafide and reasonable necessity, virtually reiterated the findings of the learned trial court in the following manner: -
(3.) THE learned appellate court went on to affirm the findings of the learned trial court by observing that the landlord could take on rent some other premises for settling the business of other two sons in the following manner: - ;