Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) This second appeal filed by the defendants -appellants under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Appeal Decree No. 27/2012 "LRs of Rajendra Kumar Bhandari v/s. LRs of Late Pukhraj" reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No. 65/11 "Rajendra Kumar Bhandari v/s. LRs of Pukhraj" decreeing the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff seeking eviction of the appellant -defendant from the suit premises in question situated at Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord.
(2.) The relevant findings of the learned trial court in the order dated 19.09.2011 rejecting the eviction suit are quoted below for ready reference: - - JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_2015.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20151.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20152.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20153.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20154.jpg 4. The relevant findings of the learned appellate court in the order dated 08.04.2015 granting the eviction decree on the said ground of bona fide need of the landlord are quoted below for ready reference: - - JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20155.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20156.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20157.jpg JUDGEMENT_63_LAWS(RAJ)11_20158.jpg 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the both Courts below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the defendants -appellants. This Court finds no force in the present second appeal of the defendants -appellants. 6. The settled legal position about the landlord being the best judge of his needs has been reiterated in the following judgments: - - "8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v/s. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - : (2005) 8 SCC 252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the eviction is sought for bonafide requirement of landlord, the relevant date on which the said need has to be adjudged is the date of filing the suit and subsequent events taking place during the period of litigation like engaging in other activity or business for which premises in question is required do not upset such bonafide need unless such subsequent events are of such a nature & dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether and the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief when litigation at last reaches the final stage. 9. In Prativa Devi v/s. T.V. Krishnan - : (1996) 5 SCC 353, the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement observed as under: - - "The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to indicate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court was rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thought that because of her age she needed to be looked after. That was a lookout of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for. There is nothing to show that she had any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of the family friend. On the other hand, she was there merely by sufferance. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The High Court was in error in laying down that the test is availability of alternative accommodation and not the legal right to such occupation in adjudging the bonafides of the claim of the landlord under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act. In considering the availability of alternative accommodation, the Court has to consider not merely whether such accommodation is available but also whether the landlord has a legal right to such accommodation. The appellant had established her bonafide personal requirement of the demised premises under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act and her claim could not be disallowed merely on the ground that she was staying as a guest with a family friend by force of circumstances." 10. More over, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in a recent decision of two Judges bench in Satyawati Sharam v/s. Union of India - : (2008) 5 SCC 287, which has been later on reaffirmed by three Judges bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v/s. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors. - : (2009) 9 SCC 772 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly noticed that even the trend of Apex Court has shifted from pro -tenant from 1950s to 1990s to pro -landlord from 1990s onwards. The relevant extracts from the judgments in case of Satyawati Sharma (supra) & Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. are quoted below for ready reference: "12. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgments of 1950s to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. In these cases the Court consistently held that the paramount object of every rent control legislation is to provide safeguard for tenants against exploitation by landlords who seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation of a large number of people looking for a house on rent for residence or business in the background of acute scarcity thereof. However, a different trend is clearly discernible in the later judgments." The relevant para 71 of the judgment of Apex Court in Super Max International (P) Ltd. (supra) is quoted below for ready reference: "71.We reaffirm the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma and emphasize the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the relationship between the landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. (The case of the present appellant who is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. in a building, situate at Fort, Mumbai on a rental of Rs. 5236.58/ -,plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/ - per month more than amply highlights the point)" 11. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v/s. Poornima (SBCSA No. 132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasized that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms: - - "5. Learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bonafide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bonafide need for his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business". 12. In the case of Denzil Najrath v/s. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in, 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 this Court has held under: "Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bonafide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant -tenant. The owner -plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross -examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross -examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bonafide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Sec. 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant -tenant has no merit." 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants -defendants -tenants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in question to the respondent -plaintiff on or before 30.11.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 4,000/ - per month (Rupees Four Thousand only) commencing from the month of December, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub -let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellant -defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent -plaintiff within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent -plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants -defendants stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.;