Skip to content


Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Gheri Lal Ji, Janta Foot Wear Vs. Suresh Chandra S/O Shri Chhitarmal Agarwal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 78 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1984WLN563
AppellantRajendra Singh S/O Shri Gheri Lal Ji, Janta Foot Wear
RespondentSuresh Chandra S/O Shri Chhitarmal Agarwal
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....and finding is not vitiated.;the plaintiff pleaded that he will establish a modern hotel in the premises in question. the very idea of running of a modern hotel implies that there will be some workers engaged by him and he will supervise their work. whatever pleadings are there, in my opinion, the factor of supervision is implicit in the pleadings and that has rightly been considered by the first appellate court, so on that basis finding on issue no. 2, in my opinion, is not in any way vitiated.;(b) rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 - section 13(1)(h) & 14--bonafide necessity & comparative hardship--no other premises available to plaintiff--plaintiff wants to start hotel in his own premises--held, finding of fact recorded by first appellate court is..........jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below.2. learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings on issues no. 2 and 6 relating to bonafide necessity and comparative ha dship. it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved that he will supervise the hotel, which he wants to establish in the premises in question. according to the learned counsel for the appellants a new case was set no for the first rims before the first appellate court. he urged that admittedly, the plaintiff is suffering from tuberculosis and as per the medical evidence, he would not be in a position to run the hotel. it was essential for the plaintiff to have pleaded in such a situation that he would.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings on issues No. 2 and 6 relating to bonafide necessity and comparative ha dship. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved that he will supervise the hotel, which he wants to establish in the premises in question. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants a new case was set no for the first rims before the first appellate court. He urged that admittedly, the plaintiff is suffering from Tuberculosis and as per the medical evidence, he would not be in a position to run the hotel. It was essential for the plaintiff to have pleaded in such a situation that he would only supervise the work in the hotel and he will not involve him self as in any physical work. It may be stated that the plaintiff pleaded that he will establish a modern hotel in the premises in question. The very idea of running of a modern hotel implies that there will be some workers engaged by him and he will supervise their work. Whatsoever pleadings are there, in my opinion the factor of supervision is implicit in the pleadings and that has rightly been considered by the first appellate court, so on that basis finding on issue No. 2, in my opinion, is not in any way vitiated.

3. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it has not been established by the plaintiff that he could suffer greater hardship than the tenant in case premises in question are not vacated. No amendment was made in the plaint so to how the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship and there is no evidence that other accomodation is not available to the plaintiff. In this connection, suffice it to say that the premises in question belong to the plaintiff and there are no other premises available to him. The plaintiff wants to start business of hotel in his own premises and it is not necessary for him to go in search any other accommodation.

4. As regards the pleadings of partial eviction, looking to the nature of business which the plaintiff wants to establish and looking to the nature of premises and its dimensions, the question of consideration of partial eviction does not arise.

5. The findings on both the issues, in my opinion, are the findings of facts recorded by the first appellate court and, they are not in any way vitiated.

6. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal so far as the findings on these two issues are concerned.

7. I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is, hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the defendant is in occupation in the shop in question for more than 30 years. He may be allowed sufficient time to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff. In the interest of justice, in my opinion, six months time would be reasonable. The defendant shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff within a period of six months In case. the undertaking is not filed within the time, the plaintiff would be at liberty to got the decree executed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //