JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby the suit for ejectment filed by the respondent was decreed with costs. 2. The respondent Roopa Ram filed a suit for ejectment in respect of the suit-property situate on High Court Road Near Sojati Gate, Jodhpur and fully described in para 1 of the plaint. 3. According to the plaint allegations, the suit property was agreed to be taken on rent by the appellant-Bank vide an agreement dated 29-10-66 at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month and a rent-note to that effect was executed between the parties on 20-10-67. 4. According to the conditions of the written agreement dated 29-10-66, the property was to remain in the tenancy of the appellant-Bank for the period of 12 years with further option that the tenant shall be at liberty to retain the property in tenancy for further 10 years subject to the condition that the rate of rent shall be increased by 10%. However, the plaintiff was not knowing about the said extension clause and consequently, after the expiry of the first 12 years, he instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 2/79) for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Subsequently, when the plaintiff came to know about the extension clause, he got the said suit dismissed on 22-7-86 primarily on the ground of it being premature. However, even after the expiry of 22 years, when the plaintiff wanted the possession of the suit property back from the appellant-Bank, the appellant-Bank refused to deliver the possession. According to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff Roopa Ram traditionally was a 'Gold-smith' but on account of advancement of his age, he was no more competent to continue that job and consequently, decided to run a hotel in the suit premises because the situation of the and there were lot many hotels and restaurants, which were running successfully in the vicinity. Consequently, it was planned to starts hotel with the name of 'Hotel Ridhi- Sidhi'. According to the plaint allegations, the ground floor area was planned as a restaurant and on the first floor and the second floor, rooms for guests were planned and the plan with a map was submitted to the concerned department for sanction. According to the plaint allegation, Rs. According to the plaint allegations, the ground floor area was planned as a restaurant and on the first floor and the second floor, rooms for guests were planned and the plan with a map was submitted to the concerned department for sanction. According to the plaint allegation, Rs. 2-2.5 lacs were expected to be spent towards addition and alteration and the plaintiff had the required money with him. Further the plaintiff had an arrangement to introduce Nand Lal Soni (son of his brother) as his partner who had agreed to invest Rs. 3.5 lacs towards the working capital of the proposed hotel. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the premises were needed reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff for the said hotel and the appellant-Bank was not going to suffer any difficulty in finding alternative premises for itself and so far as the question of comparative hardship was concerned, the plaintiff had a much better case than the appellants. It was submitted that a decree of partial eviction would not serve the purpose of the plaintiff as the entire premises were needed for the hotel business. Further it was submitted that the first floor of the premises was lying un-utilized since long and on this ground also, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction. 5. The defendants denied in their written statement that the plaintiff needed the premises for any purpose. It was admitted that a decree for partial eviction was not going to serve the purpose of either side. It was denied that the first floor of the premises was lying vacant. Further, it was stated that the earlier suit No. 2/79 was dismissed and this suit was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 6. Necessary issues were framed. The plaintiff Roopa Ram examined himself as PW2. Pukh Raj (PW1) and Nand Lal Soni (PW3) were further examined by the plaintiff. DW 1 S. K. Vyas, DW 2 M.L. Chhajer, DW 3 Deepak Prakash Bhatnager, DW 4 Padam Raj Mehta were examined by the defendants. The learned trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 20-4-95. 7. Issue No. 4 which was raised on the plea that the first floor area was lying un-utilized, was decided against the plaintiff. Other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, in suit was decreed. The learned trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 20-4-95. 7. Issue No. 4 which was raised on the plea that the first floor area was lying un-utilized, was decided against the plaintiff. Other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, in suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the defendants. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has criticised the finding of the learned trial Court in respect of Issue No. 1, which pertains to the alleged reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff. It is argued that the plaintiff is a 'Gold-smith' and he has no idea to run hotel business. Further it is contended that the plaintiff has no resources to make a hotel functional and the allegations made in this respect in the plaint have no relation with reality. 10. After going through the evidence, I find no reason to differ with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff Roopa Ram has stated that traditionally, he was a 'Goldsmith' and now with advancement of age and fading eye-sight, he is not in a position to continue in the business of Goldsmith, He has stated that he wants to convert the building in a hotel and for permission, an application Ex. 4 was moved by him before the Municipal Board, Jodhpur. Subsequently, he learnt that the jurisdiction to grant the desired permission vested with the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and consequently, another application Ex. 5 was moved before the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. According to the witness, the desired permission was granted by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vide order Ex. 6, as per the map Ex. 7. He has further stated that he will introduce PW3 Nand Lal Soni (son of a brother) as a partner in the business and the agreement in this respect is Ex. 8. He has stated that there are about 15 hotels in the vicinity of the area and the location is conducive for the hotel business. According to the witness, the appellant-Bank can get alternative accommodation in the nearby area and the wife of Mool Chand Advocate actually made an offer to the appellant-Bank to hire her premises. 8. He has stated that there are about 15 hotels in the vicinity of the area and the location is conducive for the hotel business. According to the witness, the appellant-Bank can get alternative accommodation in the nearby area and the wife of Mool Chand Advocate actually made an offer to the appellant-Bank to hire her premises. PW3 Nand Lal Soni has stated that the plaintiff is his uncle with whom he has entered into a partnership to start the hotel. He has stated that there are 15-20 hotels in the nearby area. Further he has stated that he was working as Assistant Manager at Hotel Novelty in Bombay for about 2 years and thus, he has got the requisite experience to run a hotel. 11. PW1 Pukh Raj is a Chartered Accountant and a son of the sister of the plaintiff. He has stated on 7-2-92 that he was an Income-tax payee since 1966 and was earning about Rs. 3 lacs per annum as a Chartered Accountant and he was in a position to lend Rs. 5-10 lacs to the plaintiff for the hotel business. 12. In rebuttal, DW 1 S. K. Vyas, an employee of the appellant-Bank, has stated that the place is insufficient for a hotel and according to him, 3000 to 3500 Sq. Ft. area was needed to run a hotel. DW 2 M. L. Chhajer, another employee of the appellant-Bank, has stated that the Bank is running its business very successfully in the suit-premises and they have earned a goodwill in the area. DW 3 Deepak Prakash Bhatnagar, another officer of the appellant-Bank was examined on the point of alternative accommodation for the Bank. He, however, pleaded ignorance and stated that he is not aware of any other place suitable for the Bank. He also pleaded ignorance, as to whether the wife of Mool Chand Advocate offered alternative accommodation for the Bank. DW 4 Padam Raj Mehta is also an employee of the appellant-Bank, who deposed about Issue No. 4 and stated that initially, the first floor area was utilised for the residence of the Manager of the Bank but subsequently, it is being utilised for office purposes. 13. I find that so far as the finding on Issue No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of the plaintiff more or less has remained unrebutted. 13. I find that so far as the finding on Issue No. 1 is concerned, the evidence of the plaintiff more or less has remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of PW1 Pukh Raj, PW2 Roopa Ram and PW3 Nand Lal Soni. Similarly, there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence (Ex. 5 to Ex. 8). It is true that so far as the plaintiff Roopa Ram is concerned, he has no previous experience to run a hotel but that does not mean that he should be prevented from starting a hotel in the suit-premises, if he honestly intends to do so. In this respect the testimony of PW3 Nand Lal Soni is to the effect that he was working as an Assistant Manager for about 2 years in a hotel at Bombay and nothing has come in evidence on the basis of which the witness may not be relied upon. Regarding the resources, which shall be needed, PW1 Pukh Raj has come and stated that he can provide the requisite financial assistance in this respect to the plaintiff who is a maternal uncle. Similarly, PW3 Nand Lal Soni, the proposed partner, has deposed that he is in a position to inject money for the proposed business. If there is further shortage of money, the same can be arranged privately or through a Bank loan. DW 1 S.K. Vyas in his cross-examination, has admitted that Sardarpura Branch of the appellant-Bank has provided finance to 'Hotel Priya'. It, thus, cannot be said that the plaintiff is not in a position to start hotel business in the suit-premises. 14. So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the case of the plaintiff is much more weighty than that of the appellants. There is no reason to believe that the appellant-Bank is not is a position to hire alternative accommodation. It is argued that the Bank has developed some sort of good-will in the suit-premises and on that account, a decree for eviction should not be passed. Needless to say that the argument is untenable. If that argument is allowed, in that case, wherever, the tenant is able to establish some good-will in respect of his business, no decree for ejectment can ever be passed, however high the need of the landlord may be. Such is not the intention of the law. Needless to say that the argument is untenable. If that argument is allowed, in that case, wherever, the tenant is able to establish some good-will in respect of his business, no decree for ejectment can ever be passed, however high the need of the landlord may be. Such is not the intention of the law. The tenancy is already more than 36 years old. According to the plaintiff, the widow of Mool Chand Advocate specifically offered her premises as an alternative accommodation to the appellant-Bank. None of the witnesses examined by the appellants has stated that this offer was not made. The witnesses of the defendants have all admitted that there are other hotels functioning in the vicinity. The plaintiff Roopa Ram has deposed, that in the nearby area known as 'Takiya Chand Shah' there was accommodation available to the appellant-Bank. This allegation was not been denied by the witnesses examined by the appellants. 15. On the other hand, DW 3 Deepak Prakash Bhatnagar on 9-5-95 admitted during the cross-examination that some 4-5 years back, in the area known as 'Takiya Chand Shah', the office of Punjab National Bank and Life Insurance Company have opened. In this way, it is clear that alternative accommodation can be obtained by the appellants but no serious attempt is being made in this direction. Be that as it may, on the basis of the evidence on record, it is established that hardship of the plaintiff in comparison is much more than the hardship, in the case of eviction decree is likely to be suffered by the appellants. 16. So far as Issue No. 3 regarding the possibility of partial decree of eviction is concerned, it was submitted during the course of arguments that neither the necessity of the plaintiff is going to be satisfied by a partial decree nor the appellant-Bank is in a position to function after parting with a portion of the suit-property. In para 10 of the written statement, it is specifically stated that the appellant-Bank cannot function in a part of the premises. DW 1 S. K. Vyas has stated that for hotel business, minimum built area required must be between 3000-3500 Sq. Yds. According to the witness, the entire suit premises would fall short to run a hotel. As per the Agreement Ex. 1, the total area of the suit premises is 3608 Sq. Ft. DW 1 S. K. Vyas has stated that for hotel business, minimum built area required must be between 3000-3500 Sq. Yds. According to the witness, the entire suit premises would fall short to run a hotel. As per the Agreement Ex. 1, the total area of the suit premises is 3608 Sq. Ft. In these circumstances, it is clear that passing of a decree for partial eviction would not suit either party. 17. At the end, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the earlier suit (Civil Suit No. 2-97) was also filed on account of personal necessity and since that suit was dismissed on merits subsequent suit for personal necessity was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. I find no merit in this argument. Certified copy of the judgment delivered in the earlier suit was not tendered in evidence and, hence, nothing can be argued on that account. More-over, it is not in dispute that the necessity at the time of filing of the earlier suit was shown as business of a 'Gold- smith'. The subsequent suit has been filed alleging that the plaintiff needs the premises as he wants to run a hotel in the same. The personal necessity can change from time to time and it cannot be said that the suit was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 18. No other point was argued. 19. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons in support of the conclusions drawn by him and I find no material to draw different conclusions. 20. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******