PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 20. 7. 1991, passed by the trial court, by which, while allowing the suit for rent and eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'landlady') a decree for eviction has been passed against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'tenant') and possession of the suit premises was to be given within two months.
(2.) THE dispute is in regard to a shop No. A-2, Jayanti Market, Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur including basement, ground floor and first floor besides stairs. THE suit premises were required by the landlady for jewelery and handicrafts business to be started by her husband. THEre is no dispute that a lease agreement made effective from 1. 2. 1980 was executed initially for three years and further extended for a period of two years upto 1. 2. 1985. THE suit premises were taken on lease by the tenant for the purpose of shifting of show-room of tyres and tubes of the company. As per pleadings of the parties, the issues in regard to personal bonafide necessity, comparative hardship, partial eviction, suit been filed before expiry of lease period, change of user as also damages to the property were framed by the trial court. Eight witnesses including husband, brother and brother-in- law were examined on behalf of the landlady. In contra, four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the tenant including three employees of the company and one broker. After appreciation of evidence all the issues, except issue in regard to damage to the property, were decided against the tenant and the suit was decreed accordingly. Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the tenant, submitted that apart from bonafide necessary not been proved even the issue in regard to change of user has also not been proved so far. It has been asserted that the landlady did not examine herself to prove her claim and, in absence of the statement of the plaintiff-landlady herself, the entire suit should have been dismissed by the trial court. He has further submitted that the only intention of the landlady was to get the suit premises vacated with ulterior motive of getting the rent enhanced. One letter of the landlady has been submitted before this court along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, to show that the landlady was only interested in increase of rent and not eviction of the suit premises. Mr. S. M. Mehta, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the landlady, while supporting the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, has submitted that there is ample evidence to prove the bonafide personal necessity of the landlady. Once bonafide personal necessity, comparative hardship and issue of partial eviction been decided in favour of the landlady, the issue of change of user otherwise is also not very relevant. He has further submitted that in view of sufficient evidence on behalf of the landlady and on admitted facts of lease agreement been executed for a period of five years expired on 1. 2. 1985, non- appearance of the landlady in the witness box is neither very relevant nor fatal.
(3.) AFTER having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also judgments cited at the Bar. The execution and the period of lease agreement have not been disputed so far. The landlady, in her plaint, has clearly stated that the suit premises was required for business of jewelery and handicrafts by her husband. The suit premises is the most appropriate place for such business. Since husband of the landlady has to support his family including two sons and two daughters, in view of the family responsibilities, comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlady. In support of claim of the landlady, her husband was examined as PW-1. He has clearly stated that after completion of his education he initially started business of jewelery with two persons in partnership, however, the partnership was ultimately dissolved in the year 1982. Thereafter, he has been doing 'dalali' of jewelery and has not been earning much. It has further been asserted by husband of the landlady that he has the experience of the business of jewelery and handicrafts and the suit premises is the most appropriate place for starting such business. There are other similar business emporiums also near and around the same market. He has also asserted that he has to support his wife and four children; two minor sons and two daughters. PW-2, brother of the landlord, has supported the statement of husband of the landlady. PW-3- Ramavtar and PW-5-Moti Chand Daga have also supported the statement of husband of the landlady so far as business of handicrafts in the present matter is concerned. PW-4-Rikhab Chand, as a Chartered Accountant, has proved the closure of the earlier partnership firm as also income tax returns of the husband of the landlady. PW-6-Siramal Chopra, elder brother of the husband of the landlady, has submitted that even father and mother are living with his younger brother i. e. husband of the landlady. He has further asserted that because of large number of tourists coming in the same market, the suit premises is the most appropriate place for opening show-room of jewelery and handicrafts. The witness has also asserted that the basement, the ground floor and the first floor are required for storage, show- room and work-shop and such business of jewelery and handicrafts cannot be started in part of the premises. On the other hand, three witnesses, who are employees of the tenant, has only asserted that the landlady had come to the office in March, 1985 with a request for increase of rent from Rs. 1800/- per month to Rs. 3600/- per month and request not been accepted by the management, the present suit for eviction had been filed by the landlady. They have also stated that the suit premises in Jayanti Market is not a proper place for business of jewelery and handicrafts. One of the four witnesses is only a broker who stated that he tried to find out alternative proper premises for the tenant, however, no appropriate premises were available at the relevant time. ;