Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THESE first appeals and second appeals filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff has filed two second appeals being CSA No. 343/2004 -Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Sant Ram and CSA No. 177/206 -Surendra Kumar v. Ram Chandra & Ors. assailing the concurrent judgments and refusal of eviction decree by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated 06.04.2004 and 19.05.2004 respectively, by which the appeals filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2002 and 09.07.2002 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sri Ganganagar and Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit Nos. 62/94 -Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Sant Ram and 63/94 (57/1994) -Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. LR's of Balchand (Ramchandra & Ors.) dismissing the eviction suits filed by the plaintiff/appellant on the same grounds, were dismissed. As far as second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff being SBCSA No. 343/2004 -Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Sant Ram, is concerned, a coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the said appeal framed following substantial questions of law on 04.11.2014, which reads as infra: - - "(1) Whether the finding of the trial court recorded on the issue of personal bonafide necessity of the suit premises for establishing hotel by the sons of the plaintiff is based on only assumption, conjecture and surmises and the finding is perverse? (2) Whether the both the courts below failed to appreciate the effect of the proposition that the landlord is best judge to decide the suitability of accommodation for his need? (3) Whether the landlord can be asked to construct a hotel on an agricultural land despite the fact that he possesses commercial property in the market and near the railway station -
(3.) THE connected CSA No. 177/2006 -Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Ram Chandra & Ors., was admitted by another coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2006 on the same substantial questions of law as framed in SBCSA No. 343/2004.;