Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Kumar vs Ahmed Farooq & Ors on 23 August, 2012
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011
Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq
ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012
1/23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs. Ahmed Farooq & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 1/2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23rd August, 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. Arpit Bhoot, for the appellant-defendant
Mr. J.R.Patel, for the respondent-plaintiffs.
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT:
1. The defendant tenant - Surendra Kumar has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in this Court on 3/1/2011 being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of eviction dated 1/12/2010 passed against him in respect of suit premises, shop no.3 in Abdulla Building `B', Station Road, Jodhpur, SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 2/23 which was initially let out to him at the monthly rent of Rs.225/- and the eviction suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs - Ahmed Farooq & others for the bonafide and reasonable need of the suit shop for Abdul Tahir s/o Ahmed Farooq, who in the year 1989 had done his M.Com. and wanted to start his steel and wooden furniture business in the said suit shop.
2. The eviction suit in the present case has a chequered history of remands and re-decision in the courts below and brief discussion of the important dates may be relevant here. After institution of the suit on 11/1/1989 on the ground of default and personal bonafide need, on 9/7/90 written statement was filed by the defendant tenant and on 8/11/1990, amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenant with the allegation that another shop in the same building of the plaintiff had become available and such amendment was allowed by the learned trial court on 15/11/1990. On 7/1/1991, rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs and issues were framed on 13/1/1991. On 22/7/1991, another application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the tenant for returning the plaint SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 3/23 since the court fees on correct valuation of the suit premises was not paid according to him. The said application was allowed on 6/3/1992. Another application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenant on 17/11/1992 that one more shop no.2 had become available to the plaintiffs, which was earlier occupied by the tenant - Trilok Chand. However, said application was rejected by the learned trial court on 1/12/1993. On 19/5/1997, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and though bonafide need of the plaintiffs was not found to be established, but defendant-tenant was found to be defaulter in payment of rent. On 25/7/2002, landlord's appeal was partly allowed and matter was remanded back to the learned trial court framing another issue that under what circumstances the landlord had transferred/sold the shop no.2, which was vacated by Trilok Chand. Upon remand, the learned trial court decreed the suit of eviction on 30/9/2003 even on the ground of bonafide necessity of Abdul Tahir. The appeal filed by the tenant against the said decree was partly allowed on 10/11/2003 as the tenant filed another amendment application during pendency of the appeal before first appellate court that Abdul Tahir, for whose need the eviction was SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 4/23 sought has started business in the name of Union Enterprises with the partnership of one Subhash Vaswani and Mohd. Asif. Both the parties filed second appeals before this Court and the first appellate court was directed to decide the appeal again after amendment of the plaint again. On 22/8/2006, the suit came to be decreed fully in favour of respondent-landlord and on 1/12/2010, the appeal preferred by the tenant also came to be dismissed and thus, the concurrent decree of eviction was passed by both the courts below against the defendant tenant.
3. Being aggrieved by these two concurrent decrees, the present second appeal has been preferred by the tenant - Surendra Kumar under Section 100 CPC before this Court and the same was heard for final disposal by the consent of both the learned counsels at the admission stage itself.
4. Mr. M.C.Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing on behalf of the defendant-tenant, Surendra Kumar, appellant herein, urged that the courts below have perversely held that there was a bonafide requirement of the suit shop for Abdul Tahir SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 5/23 since he was already gainfully employed and was doing business with his father-in-law cum maternal uncle Mohd. Ateek and had their business premises at 17, Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur and Abdul Tahir is an Income Tax assessee and has a regular PAN Card in his name, which he admitted in his statement before the courts below. He also submitted that there were contradictions in the statements of P.W.5 - Abdul Tahir himself and P.W.-3 Mohd. Haroon, his elder brother and from time to time the said Abdul Tahir had engaged himself in different businesses in three firms in the name of M/s Union Enterprises, M/s Jodhpur Allegiance and M/s Best Associates, therefore, despite remand the learned trial court wrongly decided issue no.11A against the defendant-tenant and since alleged bonafide need is nothing but whimsical desire of the landlord, the eviction decree deserves to be set aside and judgments under appeal give rise to substantial question of law, which deserves to be framed and decided in favour of appellant-defendant-tenant. Mr.M.C.Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions.
(i) Roshan Lal & anr. vs. Madan Lal & Ors. - (1975) 2 SCC 785 SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 6/23
(ii) The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Smt. Nirmala & anr.
2009 (2) WLC (Raj.) 126
(iii) Rakesh Gupta vs. Ahmed Farooq - 1992(2) RLW 398
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.R.Patel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff landlords relying upon the large number of cases in support of his contentions vehemently submitted as follows:
(i) That the concurrent findings of courts below after multiple remands and amendments sought by the tenant prolonging the litigation & eviction of tenant have rightly held on the basis of cogent and relevant evidence that the bonafide need for the suit shop for Abdul Tahir existed not only on the date of filing of the suit but continued even thereafter till the point of passing of the decree and even by now and such findings of facts being correct and genuine, cannot be said to be perverse and no substantial question of law arises out of such findings of SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 7/23 facts returned by the courts below and the present second appeal filed by the defendant tenant deserves dismissal.
(ii) That the said Abdul Tahir, a Post Graduate in the year 1989, could not be expected to starve and whatever business he did intermittently with his relatives have since been closed down and the fact remains that 17, Light Industrial Area premises has been let out entirely to different persons, as has come in evidence on record and, therefore, once again Abdul Tahir remains an unemployed man in his current age of 40s and the suit shop is sufficiently big and enough to start his wooden and steel furniture business and the shop being situated at the main Station Road of Jodhpur, the same is appropriate for said business and the defendant tenant is illegally occupying the same despite eviction decree against him and is not vacating the suit shop even though the finding of bonafide requirement of landlord is against him by two courts below.
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 8/23
(iii) He relied upon the following cases in support of his contentions:
On the Scope of Civil Second Appeal:
(A) Finding of Fact:
(i) Jaharuddin vs. Mohammed Dukaman - 1993(1) WLC
(Raj.) 381.
(ii) Narayanan Rajendran & anr. vs. Lekshmy Sarojini
&Ors. - 2009(2) WLC 51
(iii) Deep Chand Juneja vs. Lajwanti Kathuria - (2008) 8 SCC 497
(iv) Satya Narain & Ors. vs. Jatan Mal Lodha & Ors. -
2011 (3) RLW 2209
(v) Ayub Khan vs. Sm.t Purnima Daddha - 2011 WLC (UC) 209 (B). Jurisdiction of Second Appellate Court - condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 100 CPC:
(i) Gurdev Kaur & ors. vs. Kaki & Ors. - 2006 (2) WLC (SC ) 326
(ii) Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam vs. Pamarti Venkayamma -
2009 (2) WLC (SC) 1 SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 9/23
(iii) Hari Singh vs. Kanhaiya Lal - 1999 (4) CCC (SC) 156 On the point of substantial question of law - meaning Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari - 2001 WLC (SC) 186 On the point that landlord is the best judge of his requirement
(i) Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. -
(2000) 1 SCC 679
(ii) Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar vs. M/s Traders & Agencies 1997 (1) RCJ (SC) 395
(iii) R.C.Tamrakar & anr. vs. Nidi Lekha - 2001 (4) CCC 198 (SC)
(iv) Mohinder Kaur vs. Balwinder Kumar - 2010 (2) CCC 453 (P&H) On the issue that right of the landlord is to be determined on the date of petition :
(i) Naresh Chand vs. Smt. Premlata Bakshi - 2009 (1) RLW 784 (Raj.)
(ii) Tola Ram vs. Addl. District Judge & Anr. - 2012(2) RLW 1160 (Raj.) SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 10/23
(iii) Gaya Prasad vs. Sh. Pradeep Srivastava - 2001 (1) RCJ 522 (SC)
(iv) Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 252 On the issue of presumption in favour of landlord:
(i) Asuji Bharat Kumar (M/s) vs. Shantilal Ors. - 2006 CJ (Rent Control) 508
(ii) Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - 1999 (1) RCJ 158 (SC) On the point of protection of the tenant under Section 15:
(i) M.L. Prabhakar vs. Rajiv Singal - 2001 (1) CCC 72 (SC)
(ii) Pratap Rai Tanwani & anr. vs. Uttam Chand & Ors. -
2004 (2) WLC (SC) 713 On the point that need or requirement cannot be equated to absolute or compelling necessity:
Raghunath G. Panhale vs. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.- 2001 (1) RCJ (SC) 161 On the issue of comparative hardship:
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 11/23 Shamshad Ahmad & ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj - 2009 (1) RLW (SC) 172
6. I have heard the learned counsels at length and given my thoughtful consideration to the relevant submissions, evidence on record and case laws cited at the bar.
7. Time and again in plethora of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have held that scope of Section 100 CPC, particularly after amendment in CPC in 1976, is very limited and it cannot be allowed to become a third trial of facts.
8. Expressing its anguish and concern in this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Narayanan Rajendran & anr. Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini & ors. - 2009(2) WLC 51 held that the findings of fact even if grossly erroneous are not upon to interference under Section 100 CPC. It would be relevant to quote para 64 of the said judgment hereunder:-
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 12/23 "64. Now, after 1976 Amendment, the scope of Section 100 has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down.
The High Courts would have jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 C.P.C. only in a case where substantial questions of law are involved and those questions have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law and then only the High Court is permitted to proceed with the case to decide those questions of law. The language used in the amended section specifically incorporates the words as "substantial question of law"
which is indicative of the legislative intention. It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become "thir d trial on facts"or "onemore dice in the gamble"
. The effect of the amendment mainly, according to the amended section, was:
(i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved;
(ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question;
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 13/23
(iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal;
(iv) Another part of the Section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question."
9. Though in the earlier decision in Gurdev Kaur's case the Supreme Court had exhaustively dealt with the cases before and after 1976 Amendment of CPC, the Hon'ble Court expressed its anguish at the interference with the concurrent findings of facts by the High Courts in second appeals. To quote, para 70 to 72 of the said judgment are found relevant:-
"70. The legislative intention has been clearly spelt out in a series of cases of this court. In Gurdev Kaur (supra), this court exhaustively dealt with the cases before and after 1976 Amendment of CPC. This court clearly observed that the scope and ambit of section 100 CPC has been drastically changed after the amendment.
71. It is a matter of common experience in this court that despite clear enunciation of law in a catena of cases SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 14/23 of this court, a large number of cases are brought to our notice where the High Court under section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of fact without formulating the substantial question of law. We have cited only some cases and these cases can be easily multiplied further to demonstrate that this court is compelled to interfere in a large number of cases decided by the High Courts under section 100 CPC. Eventually this court has to set aside these judgments of the High Courts and remit the cases to the respective High Courts for deciding them de novo after formulating substantial question of law. Unfortunately, several years are lost in the process. Litigants find it both extremely expensive and time consuming. This is one of the main reasons of delay in the administration of justice in civil matters.
72. We have once again undertaken this exercise and tried to crystallize the legislative intention by referring to a number of cases decided by this court with the hope that now the High Courts would refrain from interfering with the concurrent findings of fact without formulating substantial question of law."
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 15/23
10. Without multiplying the case laws on this issue, this Court in large number of cases and Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that findings of fact about the bonafide need of the landlord for eviction of suit premises remain the findings of fact and unless found to be absolutely perverse, dehors of evidence, bereft of context, such findings of facts cannot be disturbed in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. To quote, para 6 from the decision of this Court in the case of Jaharuddin vs. Mohammed Dukaman - 1993 (1) WLC 381 would be appropriate :-
"6. It was next contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned lower courts have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and findings recorded on the reasonable and bonafide necessity in favour of the plaintiff-respondent are not correct. There is no force in these contentions also. It has been held in State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1976 SC 2547 para 25 that even gross error cannot be upset in second appeal. It has been held in Mithulal v. Radhelal, AIR 1974 S.C. 1596, that finding on the point of reasonable and bonafide necessity are findings of fact and cannot be interfered in second appeal. Reference of Bhairav Chand Nardas v. Ranadhiv Chand SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 16/23 Dutta, AIR 1988 S.C. 396 and Pal Singh v. Surendra Singh, AIR 1989 S.C. 758 may also be made here."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deep Chandra Juneja vs. Lajwanti Kathuria - (2008) 8 SCC 497 held in para 40 & 41 as under:-
"40. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC 604] this Court held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996)5 SCC 353] it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. In Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan [(2007) 4 SCC 465] this Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 and Rule 16 of the Rules, 1972, held that the bonafide personal need of the landlord is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with.
42. Having regard to the well-reasoned concurrent findings and reasoning recorded by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority, which are SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 17/23 affirmed by the High Court in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us by the appellant tenant. In the result, for the above stated reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly."
12. Now coming to the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. M.C.Bhoot, it may be stated here that the observation made in the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta vs. Ahmed Farooq - 1992 (2) RLW 398 in para 7 of the judgment while deciding the revision petition filed by the tenant and remanding the case back to the appellate court below while allowing the application of the defendant tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and framing an additional issue to the effect that the ground for eviction is not only required to be in existence at the time of filing of the suit but also must continue to exist until decree is executed or tenant is actually evicted is an observation directly in conflict with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such need has to exist on the date of filing of the SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 18/23 suit for eviction in the case of Gaya Prasad vs.Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC 604] & Sait Nagjee Purushotham & co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252. Therefore, such obiter of learned Single Judge while remanding the case back to first appellate court cannot be of any assistance to the appellant-defendant-tenant in the present case and as indicated above the said obiter is in conflict with the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, cannot be held to be a good law. The other cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant are also distinguishable on facts.
13. The judgment relied upon by the learned for the appellant- defendant in case of Roshan Lal & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. - (1975) 2 SCC 785, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case in which eviction decree was passed on compromise between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such compromise should also be based on the statutory grounds specified in M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Such being not the facts in the present case, the said judgment is found to be distinguishable here.
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 19/23
14. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sm.t Nirmala & Anr. - 2009 (2) WLC 126, the learned Single Judge of this Court held in para 47 that the landlord while pleading a case of bonafide requirement cannot conceal material facts and cannot make mis-statement on relevant facts and finding that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, this Court refused the eviction decree to the landlord. The said case is also clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as no such concealment of facts has been made in the present case and on the other hand whenever the amendments were sought by the tenant before the trial court or before the first appellate court on the question of alternative accommodation becoming available to the landlord, the Courts below allowed such amendment and even first appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court but upon reappreciation of evidence brought on record by the plaintiff landlord, it was found that no such alternative accommodation was really available for the requirement of Abdul Tahir and thus, again the eviction decree was concurrently granted by the courts below.
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 20/23
15. It is well settled that evidence on record cannot be reappreciated in second appeal under Section 100 CPC like it could be done in first appeal under Section 96 CPC and such second appeal would lie only if substantial question of law, as defined in various case laws, arises in the matter. Nothing of this sort is found in the present case.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that Abdul Tahir was not unemployed as he did partnership business at the premises 17, Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur and was an Income Tax assessee having regular PAN Car is of little avail to the defendant-tenant since the courts below have found that such business for short period like purchase and sale of agricultural land in partnership with this father-in-law was a few transactions business and in fact the entire premises of 17, Light Industrial Area was let out to different tenants by his father-in-law and, therefore, there was no regular job or employment available to Abdul Tahir for whose need the other landlords including himself were seeking eviction of SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 21/23 the suit premises. The other firms also stood dissolved & no active and regular employment of said Abdul Tahir was established by the defendant tenant. Such findings based on relevant evidence are findings of fact and they cannot be said to be perverse and it is well settled that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms in this regard to the landlord and landlord himself is the best judge for his personal need of the suit premises as has been held by this Court in the cases of Denzil Nagrath vs. L.Rs of Balwant Singh - 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 and Shri Kishan vs. L.Rs of Manmal (SBCSA No. 125/93 decided on 30/7/2012).
17. Thus, on an overall appreciation of facts and circumstances and case laws cited at the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-tenant and eviction decree passed by the courts below on personal bonafide need of the landlord deserves to be upheld.
SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 22/23
18. The present second appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff (landlord) within a period of six months from today and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.2000/- per month commencing from September, 2012 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent-plaintiff till the vacant possession is handed over to the plaintiff & defendant shall also pay arrears of mesne profit/rent, if any within three months, otherwise such amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same and the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall SB.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.1/2011 Surendra Kumar Jaggi vs Ahmed Farooq ors Judgment dt:23/8/2012 23/23 furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop is not handed over or mesne profits are not paid to the respondent-plaintiff/landlord within a period of six months from today, besides expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the parties and learned courts below forthwith. No costs.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
Item no.1 Baweja/-