- (1.) Heard.
(2.) A suit for rent and eviction came to be instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant-appellant (tenant) and defendant-respondent No. 2. On the grounds of expiry of the stipulated period, as mentioned in the lease-deed, subletting by the tenant-appellant, to the respondent No. 2 and personal and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to do automobile business in the suit-premises, i.e. a shop. The learned trial court held that there has been no subletting of the suit-premises, but decided the issue of personal and bona fide necessity and comparative hardship, in favour of the plaintiff. It also decided that partial eviction is neither desirable, nor possible in view of the requirement of the plaintiff. It, therefore, passed the decree of eviction against the defendant. The matter was carried in appeal before the learned first appellate court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of eviction, passed by the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this second appeal has been filed.
(3.) There is concurrent finding that there is personal and bona fide requirement of the suit-premises by the landlord plaintiff-respondents. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence have decided the Issue relating to the bona fide and personal necessity, in favour of the plaintiffs. The question relating to the personal and bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. In the case of Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar, (1998) 6 SCC 748 : (AIR 1998 SC 2730). Hon'ble The Supreme Court has held as under :- "............ the only other question relates to the bona fide requirement of the appellant that does not give rise to any substantial question of law... It is entirely a matter to be decided on an appreciation of the evidence.......... The High Court made an attempt to reappreciate the evidence and come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his bona fide requirement........ The High Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating the evidence on record.";