SBC2ND APPEAL NO.363/2006– MOHAN LAL V/S CHHAGAN LAL . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.363/2006 Mohan Lal versus Chhagan Lal PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, for the appellant. Mr.R.R.Nagor, for the respondent. DATE OF ORDER : 8th September, 2008. O R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant – tenant against the concurrent findings of two courts below granting eviction decree in favour of the respondent – plaintiff in respect of the suit shop situated at Bhilwara on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the respondent – plaintiff. SBC2ND APPEAL NO.363/2006– MOHAN LAL V/S CHHAGAN LAL . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 2/4 3. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - defendant submitted that the said suit shop of 10 x 20 ft. situated in the commercial and main area could not be utilized for drawing room (Baithak) as his Haveli's main gate was situated after three shops adjacent to the suit shop and therefore, the Courts below have erred in upholding the personal bonafide necessity of the respondent – plaintiff. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabbir Ahmad V/s Sham Lal and another reported in (2002) 3 SCC 118, he submitted that the use of commercial property for residential purposes could not be assumed and therefore, substantial question of law arises in the present matter. He further submitted that the plaintiff – respondent had admitted that he was living with his son in the residential colony known as R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara and therefore, he did not require the suit premises either for his personal bonafide necessity and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. 4. These submissions are strongly opposed by Mr. R.R. Nagori, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – plaintiff who submitted that the defendant – tenant could not dictate to the plaintiff SBC2ND APPEAL NO.363/2006– MOHAN LAL V/S CHHAGAN LAL . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 3/4 landlord as to how he has to utilize his premises for drawing room (Baithak) purposes or not. He further submitted that merely because the plaintiff was temporarily living with his son in R.C. Vyas Colony, that does not mean that he never intended to shift to his own house and utilize the place in question for his drawing room (baithak) purposes and he submitted that from concurrent findings of two courts below upholding personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff – respondent, no substantial question of law arises. He distinguished the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant – defendant stating that shop cum flat involved in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was admittedly a non-residential building within a meaning of E.P. Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which could not be used for residential purposes, whereas in the present case, there was no such situation and the plaintiff required the said premises to be converted into his drawing room (Baithak) adjacent to his Haveli for his own purposes. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds no substantial question of law arising in the present case so as to require any interference by this Court under Section 100 Cr.P.C. The Courts below have concurrently SBC2ND APPEAL NO.363/2006– MOHAN LAL V/S CHHAGAN LAL . : ORDER DATED 8.9.2008 4/4 found on the basis of relevant evidence and upon proper appreciation of evidence that the premises in question were required for personal bonafide need of the plaintiff respondent. It is well settled that it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how he can and he should use the suit premises after its eviction. Since the courts below have found that the suit premises were required for the personal bonafide need of the respondent – plaintiff, this Court finds no ground to interfere with said concurrent findings in the present second appeal. The same is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.44 Ss/-