SHARMA, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the submissions advanced before me, I find that no substantial questions of law arise in the instant second appeal.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking eviction of defendants from the suit premises on the ground of personal bonafide necessity, substantial damages, nuisance and subletting. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur City (West) dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated December 6, 1999. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal in the Court of District Judge Jaipur City, which was transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity only and reversed the findings of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur City (west) to that extent. In the instant second appeal the defendants seek to quash the judgment and decree dated March 3, 2001 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City. Mr. Alok Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vociferously criticised the findings arrived at by the learned first appellate court. It is contended that while reversing the finding learned first appellate court did not properly consider the material on record. The plaintiffs got an another shop vacated from Shri Sindhi and let it out to Dhan Raj Tanvar. The first appellate court decreed the suit without considering this aspect that the restaurant cannot be started in a small shop of size 6' x 8'. The plaintiffs had to prove that the property which got vacated was not suitable. Reliance is place on Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal, 2001 Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 557, Amarjeet Singh vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain (1986) 4 SCC 736, Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (AIR 1999 SC 2507), N. M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and Others (AIR 1981 SC 1113), P. S. Pareed Kaka and Others vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb (2004) 5 SCC 241, M. L. Rabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal (2001) 2 SCC 355, Rattan Dev vs. Pasam Devi (2002) 7 SCC 441 = RLW 2003 (1) SC 106), Deva (dead) through L. Rs. vs. Sajjan Kumar (dead) by LRs. (2003) 7 SCC 481, Kishan Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad and Others (2003) 9 SCC 151, Sumati Jagannath vs. Gajanand Keshav Kulkarni (2005)10 SCC 490, N. D. Thadani vs. Arnavaz Rostom Printer and Anr. (2004)1 SCC 656, Bhimanagpouda Basanagouda Patil vs. Mohd. Gudusaheb (2003)3 SCC 101, and G. K. Bhatnagar vs. Abdul Alim (2002)9 SCC 516. Per contra Mr. R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the first appellate court after considering the evidence adduced before it and came on its own reasons for accepting the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and rejecting the evidence of the defendants. Therefore in the second appeal it is not permissible to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the Trial Court. Reliance is place on Arumugham vs. Sundrambal and Another (JT 1999 (4) SC 464 ). Learned counsel further contends that once landlord proved his bonafides to the objective satisfaction of the court of facts, the choice of accommodation which would satisfy his requirement should be left to landlord's subjective choice. Ratio indicated in Akhileshwar Kumar and Others vs. Mustaqim and Others (2003) 1 SCC 462 is relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his contention. Having scanned the material on record, I find that the judgment of the first appellate court is a detailed and exhaustive judgment which has taken into consideration each and available piece of evidence and relevant circumstances, assessed with objectively, consistently with the relevant principles of law hence the finding cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arumugham vs. Sundrambal and Another (supra), propounded that second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the Trial Court. It is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reason for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side.
(3.) THE submissions canvassed on behalf of the defendant appellants were rejected in toto by the first appellate court by giving its own reasons and I find myself unable to interfere with the findings of first appellate court. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. .;