JUDGMENT 1. - Spanning over a period of 20 years, the skirmish between the tenant and the landlord over the eviction from the premises has emerged as a major battle before us. Having lost before the Civil Court and the First Appellate Court, the appellant-Bank is before us in a Special Appeal They have challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2000, passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur and the judgment dated 7.12.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. By the former judgment, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the appellant-Bank was directed to vacate the premises. By the later judgment, the former judgment was upheld. Hence, this Special Appeal before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.1.1985, the original plaintiffs, Shri Banshi Dhar and Smt. Prem Devi, had purchased a building from M/s. Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. (JMEL for short). The building as a whole is known as 'Kamani House' and is situated at the prime location of the Jaipur City, namely Panch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Smt. Prem Devi, the plaintiff No. 2, was running an industry in the name and style of M/s. Krishna Metal Industries as its proprietor. The said industry was situated at Jamdoli, Agra Road, is almost 7 kms. away from Jaipur City. After the original plaintiffs had bought the premises in question, they had a bona fide necessity for o occupying the premises for their office and their storage-room and showroom. However, when the said building was purchase, the UCO Bank was already occupying the building as tenant of the erstwhile owner, JMEL. However, as the original plaintiffs had a bona fide requirement for the said building for the purpose of his business, as there was a default in 5 payment of the rent by the UCO Bank, as the Bank was not using the basement, as the Bank had materially altered/damaged the building and had created a nuisance, therefore, the original plaintiffs filed a civil suit for eviction of the Bank from the said premises on these grounds. During the pendency of the civil suit, Smt. Prem Devi expired on 28.3.1995. o Therefore, her Legal Representatives Ajay Kumar and Deepak Kumar were brought on record and were marked as 'the plaintiffs' in the civil suit. During the pendency of the civil suit, Smt. Prem Devi expired on 28.3.1995. o Therefore, her Legal Representatives Ajay Kumar and Deepak Kumar were brought on record and were marked as 'the plaintiffs' in the civil suit. On 31.7.1995, the original suit was amended by addition of Para-9A and the personal bona fide necessity of the new plaintiffs was pleaded. The amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Civil Court. According to the 5 amended pleading, the new plaintiffs had a bona fide necessity of the premises for running the business of M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. It was also stated that M/s. Krishna Metals had been changed into M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises after the demise of Smt. Prem Devi, the original plaintiff No. 2. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Court framed twelve issues as under: "1. Whether the plaintiffs require the premises bona fidely for their personal necessity; 2. Whether in case decree is not passed in favour of the plaintiffs, 5 would they suffer comparatively more difficulty than the respondents; 3. Whether the difficulty being faced by the plaintiffs shall be removed if the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Whether there is a default of more than six months in payment of rent; 5. Whether the respondent had created the nuisance in using the roof and the staircase which was not in the tenancy; 6. Relief? 7. Whether the respondent had damaged the property as the details mentioned in the plaint; 8. Whether the defendants have created the nuisance in the property as mentioned in Para 6 of the plaint; 9. Whether the respondents has not used the basement for last 5-6 years and, therefore, is liable to be evicted on the ground; 10. Whether the property in question has been rendered dangerous as I mentioned in para 8 of the suit; 11. Whether on the death of plaintiff No. 2 the suit is likely to continue on the basis of personal bona fide need; 12. Whether the name of Krishna Metal Industries has been changed to Khandelwal Enterprises by plaintiff No. 2/3 and 2/4." 4. In support of their case, the plaintiffs had examined PW.1 Ravi Khandelwal, PW.2 Deepak, PW.3 Munna Lal, PW.4 S.L. Agrawal and produced number of documents. Whether the name of Krishna Metal Industries has been changed to Khandelwal Enterprises by plaintiff No. 2/3 and 2/4." 4. In support of their case, the plaintiffs had examined PW.1 Ravi Khandelwal, PW.2 Deepak, PW.3 Munna Lal, PW.4 S.L. Agrawal and produced number of documents. On the other hand, the defendant-Bank (now the appellant-Bank before us) examined DW.1 Anand Sagar Mehta, DW.2 Subhash Bhargava and DW.3 Om Prakash Gupta and also produced number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the issue No. 1 and 11 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. The learned Civil Court clearly held that the plaintiffs were in dire need of the premises for their business purpose. Hence, they were entitled to not only continue the suit, originally filed by Sh. Banshi Dhar and Smt. Prem Devi, but were also entitled to have the possession of the premises in question delivered back to them. Issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Similarly, Issues No. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 18.9.2000. 5. Since the appellant-Bank was aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.9.2000, it filed a First Appeal before this court. After perusing the record and after appreciating the evidence vide judgment dated 7.12.2001 the learned Single Judge was pleased to reverse the finding on issues Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10, but was pleased to uphold and confirm the findings on issues No. 1, 11, 2, 3 and 12. Since the learned Single Judge had concluded that the respondents required the premises for their own bona fide necessity of running their business, be upheld the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the civil court against the appellant-Bank. 6. Mr. C.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, alongwith Mr. Gopal Garg, the learned counsels for the appellant have challenged he judgment on numerous grounds. Firstly, that after the demise of Smt. Prem Devi, her Legal Heirs could not have continued the suit. Thus, the amendment allowed in the suit was totally illegal. According to the learned counsels, the Legal Heirs should have filed a separate suit on the basis of their bona fide necessity, if any. Firstly, that after the demise of Smt. Prem Devi, her Legal Heirs could not have continued the suit. Thus, the amendment allowed in the suit was totally illegal. According to the learned counsels, the Legal Heirs should have filed a separate suit on the basis of their bona fide necessity, if any. Secondly, the original plaintiffs had pleaded the bona fide necessity of M/s. Krishna Metal Industries, whereas the Legal Heirs had pleaded the bona fide necessity of M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. However, according to the learned counsels, these two business concerns are two different and separate entities and there is no evidence to prove that M/s. Krishna Metal Industries had converted to M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. Thirdly, neither the learned Civil Court nor the learned Single Judge had considered the fact that the bona fide necessity of the plaintiffs-respondents could be satisfied by merely partially evicting the appellants from the premises in question. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended firstly, that the Legal Heirs can certainly continue the civil suit even after the demise of the original plaintiffs. Secondly, there is ample evidence on record to prove that M/s. Krishna Metal Industries changed its name to M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. According to the learned counsel, Prem Lata's son 'Raja Ram was doing the business of M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. Both, Prem Lata and Raja Ram expired in an accident on 23.3.1995. Thereafter, Raja Ram's other brother, namely Deepak Khandelwal, continued M/s. Krishna Metal Industries in the name of M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises. Deepak Khandelwal had the business registered in his name under the Shop and Commercial Act after the death of his mother Smt. Prem Lata. In order to bring these facts on record, the original plaint was amended and the amendment was allowed by the learned Civil Court. According to the learned counsel, the Bank had not led any evidence to rebut the assertions made by way of amendment. 8. Thirdly, both PW.2, Deepak, and PW.4, S.L. Agrawal, had clearly stated that bona fide necessity of the plaintiffs would not be fulfilled by the partial eviction of the Bank from the premises in question. Hence, the issue of partial eviction was decided by the learned Civil Court. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and examined the impugned judgment. 10. Hence, the issue of partial eviction was decided by the learned Civil Court. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and examined the impugned judgment. 10. The first contention raised by Mr. Garg with regard to the continuation of the civil suit after demise of the original plaintiff is no longer lis Integra. The same issue was raised before and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntla Bai & Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors., 2004 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 162: (2004) 5 SCC 772 . Relying on the case of Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, (1973) 1 SCC 688 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after the death of the original landlord, the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and occupation of other members of the family. Thus, the substituted heirs of the deceased landlord are entitled to maintain the suit for eviction of the tenant. Hence, in the instant case, the new plaintiffs, the Legal Heirs of the original plaintiff were competent to continue the civil suit. Therefore, the first contention raised by Mr. Garg has no merit. 11. It is also pertinent to point out that the amendment moved by the new plaintiff was permitted by the learned Civil Court. In the case of Shakuntla Bai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that once the amendment is allowed, the proceedings have to be decided on the basis of such amended pleadings. Therefore, the learned Civil Court and the first appellate court have not committed any illegality in deciding the controversy in issue on the basis of the amended pleadings and on the basis of the evidence produced therefor. 12. Whether M/s. Krishna Metals was transformed into M/s. Khandelwal Enterprises is purely a question of fact. Both the courts below have given a categorical finding based on the testimony and the documentary evidence that the former firm had transformed itself into the latter firm. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that a question of fact even if erroneously decided, cannot be agitated in a Special Appeal in the case of Rajgopal (Dead) by LRs. v. Kishan Gopal & Anr., 2003 (10) SCC 653 , Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that a question of fact even if erroneously decided, cannot be agitated in a Special Appeal in the case of Rajgopal (Dead) by LRs. v. Kishan Gopal & Anr., 2003 (10) SCC 653 , Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors. (supra) and Basavantaraya Patel v. Laxmibai & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 394 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in the absence of the substantial question of law, the finding of first appellate court based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. In the case of Kirpal Singh v. Mst. Kartaro & Ors., AIR 1980 Raj. 212 , this Court has also held that in Special Appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible. Similar views were also expressed in the case of Devaram v. State of Raj. & Ors., (RLW 1992 (1) 370) . In the present case, since there is a finding of the learned trial court and finding of the first appellate court, based on the appreciation of the evidence with regard to the changing of one firm into the other, we cannot interfere with the said finding. 13. As far as the point of partial eviction is concerned, PW.2 Deepak has clearly stated that they would require the entire premises for the purpose of establishing their office, their storage-room, their showroom for the purpose of their Steel Furniture business. Similar view has also been expressed by PW.4, S.L. Agrawal. Interestingly, neither of the two witnesses were cross-examined on this issue. Not even a suggestion about partial eviction was made to them by the defendant-Bank. Moreover, the appellant-Bank did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs that they require the entire premises. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Garg is not sustainable. 14. A bare perusal of the facts of this case would reveal that the plaintiff who is a small businessman is pitted against a commercially thriving Bank. Thus, it is a battle between David and Goliath. While the plaintiff is desperately trying to establish his Showroom, Office and Store Room at a prime location in Jaipur, the Bank which can conveniently find any other accommodation for its use, is tenaciously holding on to the premises. Thus, it is a battle between David and Goliath. While the plaintiff is desperately trying to establish his Showroom, Office and Store Room at a prime location in Jaipur, the Bank which can conveniently find any other accommodation for its use, is tenaciously holding on to the premises. In the case of Shakuntla Bai (supra), while discussing the object of the Rent Control Act, the Apex Court has held that the object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all times to come". Considering the fact that Jaipur is a developing and a thriving city, considering the fact that an institution, like a Bank, can easily find accommodation for its needs. It is an injustice to a small businessman to deprive of his property for all times to come. 15. In the result, there is no merit in the Special Appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 7.12.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2003, passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur are upheld and confirmed. The parties stall bear their own costs.Second appeal dismissed. *******