- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against appellate judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, South, Udaipur has been affirmed, whereby, the trial court had directed eviction of the appellant from the suit shop.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff Purshotam Lal filed a suit on 05.01.1993 for eviction of the defendant Prabhu Lal from the suit shop with the averments that he was landlord of the suit shop; the shop was in tenancy of the defendant with rent @ Rs.181/ - per month, wherein, the defendant under the firm name Srinath Watch Service was engaged in business of watch repairing; the tenant has committed default in payment of rent by not paying the rent for more than six months; his elder son Subhash Chandra is disabled (deaf and dumb), who has learnt tailoring work and having worked for ten years, he has gained experience; as plaintiff has no vacant shop, his son started working in a godown on the ground floor, which is used for his business of Ghee and Oil; he has helpers also, however, as the shop is not in the market, the customers are not aware of the shop and, therefore, he is not getting sufficient tailoring work; besides the above, as the godown is being used for tailoring work, the space for godown has been reduced and plaintiff's business of Ghee and Oil has been affected, as the godown is required for Ghee and Oil business; based on the above averments, it was stated that the shop was required by the plaintiff for reasonable and bona fide requirement of his son's tailoring business; further averments were made regarding comparative hardship and partial eviction. A written statement was filed by the appellant -defendant; it was claimed that shop was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.126/ - and, on account of threat of eviction, the same was enhanced to Rs.181/ -; the averments relating to default in payment of rent were denied; it was claimed that plaintiff's son Subhash Chandra was doing tailoring business at the existing place without any hindrance and is having two servants and from the said business he has constructed a big bungalow in Sector -5; it was claimed that another shop was let out after filing of the suit; the shop of Subhash Chandra is visible from the road; another two storeyed house was situated near Agarwal Dharamshala, wherein also, two shops have been let out; another shops were situated near Ghantaghar on the main road; the plaintiff is undertaking business of suitcase etc. on the main road alongwith his family; the premises sought to be got vacated was quite small from the existing occupied premises of his son, which cannot be used for the purpose, the eviction was being sought; the reasonable and bona fide requirement was denied and it was claimed that appellant would suffer comparatively more hardship than the plaintiff if the suit shop was got vacated. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the plaintiff ­ four witnesses including plaintiff Purshotam Lal and his son Subhash Chandra (though deaf and dumb, with the aid of sign language expert) were examined. On behalf of defendant ­ six witnesses were examined.;