1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.124/2009. (Manohar Lal Vs. Arjun Lal) DATE OF JUDGMENT : May 04, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the appellant. BY THE COURT : This second appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant challenging the validity of the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No.58/2006, whereby, while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.438/2001, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction was decreed against the defendant-appellant. I have perused the finding arrived at by the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court. In my opinion, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be 2 termed perverse or illegal in any manner. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises for the son of the plaintiff-respondent and held that son of plaintiff, Abhishek has become 21 years old and he is qualified up to 12th class and he has been doing the work of motor-rewinding and repairing for one year, therefore, the suit premises is reasonably and bona fide required for the son of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that in case of availability of another accommodation in possession of the landlord, he should take steps to start the business in that vacant premises, or the same may be offered to the tenant against whom eviction decree on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity is claimed so that the tenant may establish his business in another offered accommodation. While inviting attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Court it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that while another vacant accommodation is available with the plaintiff the same was not offered to the tenant, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court, the son of plaintiff can very well start business in another vacant accommodation in possession of the plaintiff-respondent or the same should have been offered to the appellant and necessity shown by the plaintiff of the suit premises cannot be said to be reasonable and bona fide within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (h) of the 3 Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. I have perused the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. For the purpose of adjudication of the matter, the trial Court framed six issues. The learned trial Court while deciding issue No.2 has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case for the purpose of reasonable and bona fide necessity. Likewise, the trial Court also concluded in respect of issue No.1 that the defendant- appellant has committed default in making payment of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit while giving the finding against the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff has reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises. In my opinion, the concurrent finding arrived at by the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court for eviction from the shop in question does not require any interference nor any question of law emerges in the case for consideration. With regard to contention of the appellant's counsel that another accommodation which is in possession of the landlord was to be offered with a view not to disturb the business of the tenant. In my opinion, no such plea was raised either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court. Of course, issue No.4 with regard to partial eviction was framed but that issue was decided against the appellant by both the Courts below while giving concurrent finding. In this view of the matter, argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant for offering alternative accommodation has no force. 4 However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant-appellant may be granted some time for vacating the premises. In my opinion, the appellant may vacate the premises within three months from today. For the same, the appellant shall furnish undertaking before the trial Court within a period of three weeks from today. This second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.