Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant/defendant/tenant, Mahendra Kumar, adopted son of late Sh. Ramchandra (original tenant) having lost the legal battle before the two courts below in the eviction suit has preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh (Churu) in First Appeal No. 18/07 (5/91) (32/94) -Ramchandra S/o. Birdichand (D) through LR Mahendra Kumar v. LR's of Gheesulal, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed while affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1990 passed by learned Munsif Magistrate & Civil Judge First Grade, Sujangarh, District: Churu, in Civil Original Suit No. 15/1985 -Gheesulal S/o. Asulal V. Ramchandra S/o. Birdichand, filed by the plaintiff/landlord seeking eviction of tenant from the suit premises (two rooms in the form of "Malia") situated at Sujangarh, District Churu, was decreed.
(2.) THE plaintiff/landlord, Gheesu Lal, sought eviction of the suit premises which was let out to the original tenant, Ramchandra at a monthly rent of Rs. 42/ -, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for expansion of business of grocery and starting business for his sons. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant, however, instead of vacating the suit premises, the defendant sent him a cheque of Rs. 1470/ - towards part payment of rent, which was returned. The plaintiff thus prayed for granting of eviction decree and arrears of rent as well. The defendant/tenant filed his written statement while denying the factum of default in payment of rent and even the bonafide need of the suit premises. The defendant also averred that the sons of the plaintiff are working outside, therefore, the plaintiff has no bonafide need of the suit premises. As far as default of payment, the defendant/tenant in his written statements submitted that although rent was tendered by him, however, the same was refused to be accepted by the advocate of the plaintiff. The defendant/tenant further averred that the tenant is running a small shop measuring 6' x 7' of Fancy ("Manihari"), therefore, the suit premises is being used by him as godown and, if the eviction decree is granted, hardship will be caused to him only in comparison to the plaintiff/landlord.
(3.) THE learned trial court after evaluating the entire evidence led by the parties vide the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1990 decreed the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff/landlord. The relevant findings of the learned trial court are quoted herein below: - - ;