SHARMA, J. - (1.) LEARNED first appellate court and the trial Court concurrently held that the tenanted shop was required by he landlord reasonably and bona fidely for the coal business of his son and that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. It is against these findings that the instant second appeal has been preferred by the tenant.
(2.) AS per averments made in the plaint the suit shop was let out to tenant on 1. 2. 1974 on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The tenant neither paid nor tendered the rent from 1. 7. 1977 and committed default in payment of rent. It was also pleaded that the shop was required by the landlord for his son who intended to start coal business in it. The tenant refuted both the grounds taken by he landlord in support of his plea for eviction. As many as eight issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issues in regard to reasonable and bona fide necessity, comparative hardship, partial eviction and default were decided in favour of the landlord by the trial Court vide decree dated 23. 5. 1998. Learned first appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal of tenant on 19. 10. 2000. (4-A ). This Court while admitting the appeal on 20. 12. 2000 framed following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether both the Courts below committed substantial error of law in ignoring the extract of house tax register produced before the trial Court, indicating therein that shop Nos. 1902 and 1903, both belong to plaintiff respondent Nanag Ram, who is now represented by his legal representative, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice in as much as if the aforesaid document is taken into account then finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below would have been otherwise? (ii) Whether if a copy of proceedings of municipal body is produced before the Court of law certified by legal keeper thereof or by a printed book purporting to be published by such authority even then such document is not admissible in evidence? It is contended by mr. Saxena learned counsel for the tenant that extract of house tax register of Municipal Corporation clearly established that two shops bearing Nos. 1902 and 1903 owned and possessed by the landlord and thus the suit shop was not required reasonably and bona fidely but both the Courts below committed error in deciding the issues of necessity, comparative hardship and partial eviction against the tenant. Reliance is placed on Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal (2001 LWC (SC) Civil 557 ). It is further contended that the landlord failed to prove that another shop belonged to Shakuntla. The burden of establishing that Rs. 50/- per month was the rent settled for the tenant shop was on the landlord who having failed to discharge it, the issue related to default in payment of rent could not be decided against the tenant. Reliance is placed on P. Janardhana Rao vs. Kannan (2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 77) = (RLW 2005 (1) SC 77), Smt. Kiran Devi vs. Mangtoo Ram (1988 (1) WLN 470) and Bhanwaria vs. Ram Ratan (1955 RLW (Reprints) 81 ). I have given my anxious consideration to the submission advanced before me.
(3.) HAVING closely scrutinised the material on record I notice that both the Courts below have considered the extract of house tax register Exhibit-A-1. It appears that house number where the tenanted shop existed, is 1902-1903. It belonged to two brothers viz. , Nanag Ram and Shanker Lal. Shakuntla (PW. 4) the widow of Shanker Lal in her deposition stated that after the division of the property another shop which is adjacent to tenanted shop, came in her possession. It also appears that the said shop was occupied by some other tenant for the purpose of electrical goods business. Shakuntla however deposed that she would not allow landlord's son to run coal business in her shop. The tenant Kishan Lal Sharma (DW. 1) nowhere stated in his statement, that extract of house tax register Exhibit A-1 related to two shops. Extract of house tax register Exhibit A-1, was allowed to be exhibited by the learned trial court and it was admitted in evidence. Both the Courts below after taking into consideration Exhibit A-1 concurrently held that suit shop was let out to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. the counsel for the landlord prior to filing the suit, served notice to the tenant but the tenant did not choose to reply the said notice. On considering the oral and documentary evidence both the Courts below held that the suit shop was let out to tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and tenant committed default in payment of rent. It was also observed that the suit shop was reasonably and bona fidely required for landlord's son who intended to run coal business in it. If the suit shop was not vacated the landlord would suffer more hardship in comparison to the tenant and partial eviction of the suit shop would not serve the purpose either of the landlord or the tenant. The authorities cited by learned counsel for the tenant do not applicable to the facts of the instant matter. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gurjar (1999 (3) SCC 722) = RLW 2001 (1) SC 89), the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated thus:- " It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact, being the first appellate Court. It is true that the lower appellate Court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. " ;