Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bonafide need in Chanda Prakash vs Hasti Mal on 3 August, 2012Matching Fragments
3. Both the courts below have found that the the plaintiff - respondent landlord had bonafide need for the suit shop in question and therefore, directed eviction under Section 13(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant- defendant - tenant Mr. Ashok Chhangani relying upon the following judgments submitted that the plaintiff landlord did not have bonafide need inasmuch as son of the plaintiff was an income tax payer and in his own statement, he has stated before the Court below that he was doing business with his father who owns 3 (three) Gangsaws marble cutting machines and had other properties also. Therefore, he submitted that such person at this level would not be expected to open a cloth show-room in the disputed premises and therefore, the courts SBCSA NO.178/2010-CHANDRA PRAKASH V/S HASTI MAL : JUDGMENT DTD.3.8.2012 below have erred in believing that the plaintiff - respondent had bonafide need of the suit premises in question. He relied upon the following judgments :
"The plaintiff has already been carrying on his business of transportation in addition to money lending and cultivation of land, whereas the tenant has got no other alternative accommodation available to him where he could shift his business. Merely because the defendant has not been able to prove by evidence that the plaintiff had filed the suit for oblique motive like increase in rent, the case of the plaintiff SBCSA NO.178/2010-CHANDRA PRAKASH V/S HASTI MAL : JUDGMENT DTD.3.8.2012 cannot be held to be proved for his bonafide need. Mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient. But the court has to examine objectively."
10. The landlord is the best judge of his need in this regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - tenant that since the son of the plaintiff, namely, Sanjay is also an income tax payee and belongs to a rich family and is not expected to do cloth business, is not at all acceptable. It is for the landlord and his son to decide as to what business they are going to set up in the disputed premises. The defendant himself has been admittedly doing the cloth business in that shop and if by renovating the same and converting into a proper show-room, the son of the plaintiff respondent wants to open cloth showroom, there is no lack of bonafides or reasons to disbelieve such a contention of the plaintiff. The findings regarding bonafide need of the landlord are findings of facts and unless they are palpably wrong and perverse, they do not require any interference by this Court in the second appeal.
"5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bonafide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bonafide need for SBCSA NO.178/2010-CHANDRA PRAKASH V/S HASTI MAL : JUDGMENT DTD.3.8.2012 his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business.