PANWAR, J. - (1.) This civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar (for short the first appellate court hereinafter) in Civil Appeal No. 36/2000 whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sriganganagar (for short the trial Court' hereinafter) in Civil Original Suit No. 103/94 was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of respondent Mahaveer Prasad.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that respondent Mahaveer Prasad filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction before the trial Court seeking decree of eviction of Shop No. 103, Jawahar Market, Sriganganagar and restraining the original tenant Khayali Ram from causing any damage to tenanted shop on the ground that the respondent landlord needs the rented shop for his reasonable and personal bonafide necessity in order to run Provision Shop (Pansari Shop). The original tenant filed written statement to the suit. The trial Court framed as many as six issues. The parties led evidence and by judgment and decree dated 10.5.1999, the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff came to be dismissed, against which the respondent filed a regular first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate court reversed the finding of trial Court by the judgment and decree impugned dated 20.5.2003. Hence this second appeal.
(3.) This appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the first appellate Court misread the FIR No. 85/94 and wrongly reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff and plaintiffs son had no good relations and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have been expected to produce account books of the Shop No. 55 and the plaintiff was not in position to examine his own son in support of his case? (ii) Whether the first appellate Court committed illegality in holding that the appellant's plea, that they were working with the deceased tenant in the shop in dispute, cannot be accepted?;