- (1.) Though the original plaintiff, Chiranjilal Shrimali S/o Sh. Jainarayan (who is now represented through his legal heirs) lost before the two courts below in the present suit for eviction, the present second appeal is being filed by the plaintiffs/appellants under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, in Civil Appeal No.6/2007- LR's of Chiranjilal Shrimali Vs. Purshottam Khatri, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs/landlord was dismissed while upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barmer, in Civil Original Suit No.3/2002- Chiranjilal Vs. Purshottam Khatri, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking eviction of the suit shop on the ground of personal and bonafide need, was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff, Chiranjilal, filed suit for eviction with respect to suit shop situated at Station Road, Barmer, which was let out to the defendant/tenant, Purshottam at a monthly rent of Rs.365/- per month. The plaintiff/landlord sought eviction on the ground of personal and bonafide need of the suit shop for starting business of stationery for his eldest son, namely, Manish. A notice dated 28.02.2000 was also served on the respondent/defendant handing over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop, however, the defendant when did not vacate the suit suit, the suit for eviction was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 01.06.200.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant/tenant, Purshottam Khatri, by filing his written statement while denying the bonafide necessity of landlord. The defendant/tenant further stated that there are no educational institutions in the nearby area for starting the busines of stationery in the suit shop by the son of the plaintiff, namely, Manish. The plaintiff has other alternative shop, which is just half kilometer away from the disputed shop, which shop however was let out by them to one M/s Suhag Jewellers in the year 1996 i.e. 4 years prior to filing the said suit and if at all there was any need of the suit shop, the same could be satisfied by that shop which was let out to M/s Suhag Jewellers. The defendant/tenant also averred that the son of the plaintiff, for whose business need the suit shop was sought to be vacated, is minor and he has no experience for doing such business. The defendant/tenant thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.;