1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Purshottam Lal. vs. Dr. Sohan Lal. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.349/2005 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.8.2005 PASSED BY SHRI R.M. CHATURVEDI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, BHILWARA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.114/2004. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 10.5.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the appellant. Mr.H Maheshwari, for the respondent. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff/respondent filed suit for eviction of the 2 defendant/appellant/tenant on the ground that he wants to construct house on the entire plot in dispute measuring 80 feet x 50 feet. The let out portion to the appellant is 9 feet x 15 feet whereas according to the defendant, it is 9 feet x 25 feet. The plaintiff in addition to his stand that he wants to construct a house on entire plot, also submitted that he obtained permission for construction from local body and because of the presence of the tenant, he cannot construct the house and, therefore, the plaintiff is paying penalty to the local body. Two courts concurrently found the necessity of the plaintiff as bonafide and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the appellant by the judgments and decrees dated 18.10.2004 and 2.8.2005 respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant vehemently submitted that it is clear from the evidence which came on record that the plaintiff has two more houses and that he has sufficient accommodation to live. The plaintiff nowhere stated that he will himself occupy the proposed house. The plaintiff stated in evidence that his son Devendra will live in the house with family but learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that unfortunately said son Devendra 3 expired during pendency of the suit itself. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot use the house for his son and, therefore, there is no need of the plaintiff for the plot in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant also submitted that the plaintiff may be directed to give a small piece of accommodation measuring 9 feet x 25 feet or even 9 feet x 15 feet to the appellant so that he may continue his business in the said portion of the accommodation in the property of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant also submitted that he even offered that he may be given accommodation of 10 feet x 10 feet only. Learned counsel for the respondent after taking instructions from the respondent stated that the respondent wants to construct the house and he is not in a position to spare any space and the offer given by the appellant is not agreeable to him. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the two judgments of the courts below as well as the record. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant that the plaintiff's need is only because of the reason that he is paying penalty to the local body for not raising construction after 4 obtaining permission is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected summarily because of the reason that the plaintiff's suit is not because of the ground that since he is paying penalty and he can avoid penalty by constructing the house, therefore, the tenant be evicted. The need of the plaintiff is for the construction of the house over the plot in dispute. The plaintiff, who purchased residential plot and who wants to construct house over the entire plot than it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that the plaintiff's such wish, which in fact is a need, if judged on the basis of a need of a prudent man holding the property, then that is bonafide need. The plaintiff's other residential accommodation cannot disentitle the plaintiff from conducting an entirely newly house for better use of the land for himself. The tenant who is in occupation of the small piece of land cannot resist the construction of the house of the plaintiff on the ground that he will suffer any greater hardship. The restrictions imposed against the landlord so far as increase of rent and eviction of the tenant from the rented premises by enacting Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950') cannot be stressed to mean that when a person bonafidely claims that he wants to manage his 5 property without any ulterior motive and wants the property from his tenant for his best interest which is not tinted in any manner, still the landlord cannot seek decree for eviction. The bonafide need of the plaintiff includes the need by which the plaintiff can manage the property and earn from the property as a prudent man to satisfy his bonafide need. It is true that such a principle cannot be applied when a landlord wants to evict the tenant and submits that he wants to evict the tenant from the premises simply to raise a new construction to earn more. There is also no provision under the Act of 1950 entitling the tenant to demand any other accommodation from the landlord. Be it as it may be, the need of the plaintiff for the plot in question for raising construction of building on a piece of land measuring 80 feet x 50 feet cannot be termed as not bonafide and it is not expected from landlord that to accommodate tenant in a small portion of the premises, he should keep his big piece of land open for ever. Two courts below concurrently found the said need of the plaintiff to be bonafide and this Court is not inclined to interfere in such finding of fact because of the reason that the defendant is in occupation of a small piece of land out of 80 feet x 50 feet and the defendant himself admitted that unless he vacate the 6 premises, new house cannot be constructed. The tenant also cannot dictate that if the plaintiff constructs house then he should keep one of the portion of the building or land as commercial for the tenant. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal deserves to be dismissed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is having a small business of flour mill in the small piece of land and he will have to make arrangements for money for getting another accommodation, therefore, he prayed that some reasonable time may be given to the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Learned counsel for the respondent has serious objection to the grant of time to the appellant. I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant be granted time upto 31.12.2008 to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the 7 trial court within a period of two months from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by or before 31.12.2008 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the arrears of rent and decreetal amount, if due, and shall also pay the rent upto 31.12.2008 in advance within a period of two months from today before the trial court or directly to the landlord, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.1.2009. In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of amount mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith. With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya