JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, whereby the suit filed by the appellant seeking eviction of the suit was decreed. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus : the appellant plaintiff filed a suit on 17.8.1991 for eviction and mesne profit with the averments that a shop situated at Mirchi Bazar, Jodhpur was owned by her and the respondent-defendant tenant committed default in payment of rent and therefore, he was liable to be evicted. 3. An application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was filed on 8.9.1995 with the averments that during the pendency of the suit, reasonable and bona-fide requirement has arisen to the plaintiff inter-alia for use of the shop-in-question for her grand son Gautam, aged 20 years. The application for amendment was dismissed by the trial court, however, revision was allowed and para 4A was permitted to be added in the plaint. 4. A written statement was filed by the defendant to the amended plaint and the allegations made in para No.4A of the plaint regarding reasonable and bona-fide requirement of the plaintiff were disputed. Besides denying the averments made in para No.4A of the plaint, a specific averment was made in the written statement that another shop of the plaintiff was situated in Ada Bazar, Jodhpur which was lying vacant, which the plaintiff can easily give to Gautam for his use. 5. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, her son Prakash Mal, grand son-Gautam and two other witnesses Shyam Manohar Vyas, and Achal Raj Bhandari were examined and three documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined and besides him, two other witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent, however, as the rent determined was deposited by him and during the pendency of the suit he was depositing the rent month by month, he was entitled to benefit of first default. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent, however, as the rent determined was deposited by him and during the pendency of the suit he was depositing the rent month by month, he was entitled to benefit of first default. While considering the issue relating to bona-fide requirement of the plaintiff for use of the suit premises by her grand son - Gautam, the trial court came to the conclusion that suit shop was situated at Mirchi Bazar where Gautam can have flourishing business, the shop was bigger and the plaintiff has no other shop for business. Regarding the shop at Ada Bazar, the trial court came to the conclusion that though the defendant has stated that the plaintiff has a shop at Ada Bazar, which was lying closed for several years, he does not have personal knowledge and refused to accept the plea on coming to the conclusion that nobody would keep a shop vacant for such a long time and would continue to do business in a rented shop. After relying on certain judgments, it came to the conclusion that the suit shop was required by the plaintiff. On the issue of comparative hardship, the same was held in favour of the plaintiff and the issue relating to partial eviction was determined in the nature that partial eviction was not possible. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit for eviction. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed first appeal wherein the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2005 came to the conclusion that the trial court did not advert to the fact that another shop belonging to the plaintiff was lying vacant and a room above the disputed shop was lying vacant, which was not put to use and therefore, need cannot be said to be reasonable and bona-fide, the plaintiff herself did not enter the witness-box, though the bona-fide requirement was stated on the basis that she had no income and her grand son was not able to generate sufficient income from the present shop and therefore, the suit shop was required, her non-appearance was essentially for suppressing her properties, business and financial condition. The grand son - Gautam in his cross-examination admitted money lending business of the plaintiff and the shop at Ada Bazar lying vacant from more than 10 years, Gautam having another business in the name of Vinay Bread Agency separately and a godown for bread at Paota, were completely ignored by the trial court and consequently, reversed the finding regarding bona-fide requirement and comparative hardship and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal was filed. During the pendency of this appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed by the respondent on 12.9.2005 seeking to place on record a sale deed 21.7.1998 executed by Smt. Bilam Kanwar, the plaintiff in favour of Mohini Devi selling the shop situated at Ada Bazar, Jodhpur. 9. Initially this Court after hearing the parties by the judgment dated 17.1.2009 allowed the appeal and set-aside the appellate judgment dated 2.2.2005 and restored the decree dated 27.3.2002 passed by the trial court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6203 of 2009 by the judgment dated 11.9.2009 set aside the judgment dated 17.1.2009 inter-alia, observing as under:- "Since the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court without formulating any substantial question of law arising in the case, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court, which shall now consider whether any substantial question of law arises in the appeal. If the High Court comes to the conclusion that such question arises, then it shall formulate the same and, thereafter, decide the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties." 10. This Court by order dated 25.2.2011 formulated the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the learned Appellate Court has erred in reversing the decision on issue No.1(a) and 1(b) without dealing with the meeting with the reasonings and the findings of the learned Trial Court? (ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and has ignored the aspects relevant for examining the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord?" 11. It was further directed that application moved by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 12. (ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court has proceeded on irrelevant considerations and has ignored the aspects relevant for examining the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord?" 11. It was further directed that application moved by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 12. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the suit Prakash, son of the plaintiff and father of Gautam died in the year 1997 and the plaintiff died during the pendency of this appeal on 26.2.2006; the trial court after meticulously analyzing the evidence available on record had come to the conclusion that the suit premises were bona-fidely required by the plaintiff for use of her grand son - Gautam and the first appellate court in a wholly cursory and slip-shod manner has reversed the finding without any basis; there was no justification for the first appellate court to reach a contrary conclusion from the evidence available on record; wholly immaterial considerations prevailed with the first appellate court like the alleged non-disclosure of ownership of the shop on rent with Gautam, non-disclosure of bread business of Gautam, vacant room above the disputed shop, properties of Bilam Kanwar and that the bona-fide requirement was not indicated in the notice issued before filing of the suit. It was submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1991 and the requirement arose in the year 1995 and therefore, there was no occasion for including the bona-fide requirement in the notice which was issued prior to filing of the suit. It was submitted that the judgment is wavering in its findings and cannot be sustained. No reason has been indicated as to why the finding of the trial court was incorrect. 13. It was further submitted that the fact that the shop situated at Ada Bazar was sold during the pendency of the suit cannot obviate the necessity of the plaintiff as the crucial date to adjudicate the need is the date of filing of the suit and the subsequent events which happened during the long pendency of the suit cannot be utilised for the purpose of negating the bona-fide requirement of a landlord. It was further emphasised that the choice of landlord regarding the premises cannot be questioned by the tenant. 14. It was further emphasised that the choice of landlord regarding the premises cannot be questioned by the tenant. 14. Reliance was placed on Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava : 2001 (1) ACJ 606 (SC) ; Sushila Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. Shri Mahavir Kumar Sanghi : 2008 (1) RJT 375 ; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava : (2001) 2 SCC 604 ; Naresh Chand v. Smt. Premlata Bakshi : 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 423 ; Rani Devi & Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi & Ors.: 2009 (2) RLR 257 ; and R.C. Tamrakar & Anr. v. Nidi Lekha : (2001) 8 SCC 431 . 15. Ultimately, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC be dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that admittedly, the suit was filed based on the ground of default on 17.8.1991, to which a written statement was filed on 22.4.1992 where after an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment was filed on 8.9.1995 alleging requirement of the plaintiff herself and that of her grand son - Gautam. 17. A written statement was filed to the amended plaint by the defendant on 10.3.1998 specifically alleging availability of the shop at Ada Bazar with the plaintiff, which was ultimately, sold on 20.7.1998. It was submitted that it is a mandatory requirement of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (`the Act) that no decree for eviction can be passed if other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. It was emphasised that the plaintiff should have come with clean hands and should have disclosed the shop at Ada Bazar and should have explained as to why the said accommodation was not reasonable. On the other hand, the plaintiff suppressed the availability of said shop and made false statements; in their oral statements denying existence of the shop. It was emphasised that the plaintiff should have come with clean hands and should have disclosed the shop at Ada Bazar and should have explained as to why the said accommodation was not reasonable. On the other hand, the plaintiff suppressed the availability of said shop and made false statements; in their oral statements denying existence of the shop. With reference to the document filed along-with application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC i.e. the sale deed it was indicated that it is specifically averred in the said deed that vacant possession of the shop was received by the plaintiff on 14.11.1994, which necessarily means that on the date of seeking amendment i.e. 8.9.1995, the plaintiff was in possession of alternative accommodation at Ada Bazar. It was further submitted that suppression in pleadings and false averments during oral evidence were made, during the pendency of the suit, reply to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed on 30.7.2013 that is after passage of almost eight years from the date the application was filed, wherein the crucial issue regarding the suppression has not been answered and the issue is sought to be twisted into a subsequent event. It was submitted that the document under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has been produced not to indicate the subsequent event of selling of the shop, but the availability of the shop at the time of amending the plaint inserting the bona-fide requirement. It was submitted that the trial court had not averred to the fundamental questions and the first appellate court having dealt with the relevant issue was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court. 18. It was further submitted that not only the existence of alternative accommodation was suppressed but the fact that Gautam was carrying on business of bread and was in possession of a godown at Paota was also suppressed; the burden of bona-fide requirement is that on the plaintiff and the burden is not on the defendant merely to negate plain averments of bona-fide requirements. It was also pointed out that while the statement before the trial court about non-existence of Ada Bazar shop was made by Gautam himself. The affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has been given by Dinesh, his brother which also indicates design to suppress material facts. It was also pointed out that while the statement before the trial court about non-existence of Ada Bazar shop was made by Gautam himself. The affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has been given by Dinesh, his brother which also indicates design to suppress material facts. It was submitted that bona-fide requirement has to be judged objectively, the decree passed by the trial court in ignorance of statutory provision i.e. Section 14 (2) was rightly set aside by the trial court and the misstatement cannot be mitigated by the arguments, which are sought to be made that the available accommodation was not suitable and suppression cannot be encouraged on part of the landlord. 19. It was further contended that the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC filed by the respondent deserves to be accepted as the document was suppressed by the appellants and though the plea was raised in the written statements that the shop has been sold, the same was not available with the respondent and therefore, the same could not be filed earlier; the document is crucial and is essentially necessary for this Court to deliver the judgment. 20. Reliance was placed on Uda Ram v. Pyare Lal : 2003 (1) WLC 687 ; Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal : AIR 2001 SC 2655 ; Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain : AIR 1987 SC 741 ; Sri Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah : AIR 1998 SC 994 ; Amrit Lal & Ors. v. Smt. Sohan Kumari : 2007 WLC (UC) 696 ; Mukti Lal v. Badri Narain : 2006 (1) WLC 402 ; M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan : 1999 (1) SCC 439 ; The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Smt. Nirmala & Anr., 2009 (2) WLC 126 ; A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. : (2007) 4 SCC 221 ; Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. : (2010) 14 SCC 38 ; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. : 2008 (2) WLC 186 (SC) Civil ; Shyam Gopal Bindal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., 2010(1) WLC 181 (SC) and Narayanan Rajendran & Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini & Ors., 2009 (2) WLC 51 SC. 21. : (2010) 14 SCC 38 ; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs. : 2008 (2) WLC 186 (SC) Civil ; Shyam Gopal Bindal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., 2010(1) WLC 181 (SC) and Narayanan Rajendran & Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini & Ors., 2009 (2) WLC 51 SC. 21. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the selling of the shop was a subsequent event which has no implication and there is no averment in the application that the Ada Bazar shop was suitable for the plaintiff. 22. I have considered the rival submissions. 23. A bare reading of para No.4A of the plaint, which was inserted by way of amendment reveals that the plaintiff set up the reasonable and bona-fide requirement for her grand son - Gautam along-with the fact that her financial condition was not strong, her son Prakash Mal was not keeping well and therefore, the burden of carrying on the family has shifted to Gautam and therefore, though Gautam was involved in private job in January, 1995, he took on rent a small shop in Singh Pole area and started retail grocery business in the name of Gautan General Store, the area was not business friendly, shop was small and rent was required to be paid whereas the location of suit shop i.e. Mirchi Bazar there was big scope for grocery business, the shop was bigger and Gautam could undertake the business properly. It was specifically averred that the plaintiff and Gautam does not have any other shop for the said business. 24. It was also averred that in absence of the shop, the plaintiff and her grand son were suffering hardship and difficulties as the plaintiff was a old lady, her son Prakash Mal was not keeping well and there was no source of income. The other two sons of Prakash Mal were studying, who are also required to be maintained by Gautam. 25. In the written statement, the defendant disputed the facts alleged in para No.4A and specifically averred about existence of another shop at Ada Bazar, which was lying vacant and it was also alleged that the said shop can easily be utilised by Gautam. The allegations were also made about income of the plaintiff, her son Prakash Mal and two grand sons other than Gautam. The allegations were also made about income of the plaintiff, her son Prakash Mal and two grand sons other than Gautam. In the statements when PW-2 Gautam was examined on 20.5.1998, he stated that the plaintiffs economic condition was weak, he was the sole bread earner of the family other than the suit shop, the plaintiff or the deponent did not have any other shop. 26. In the cross-examination, he admitted that besides the grocery shop he was involved in business of supply of bread regarding which he has an agency and the godown was situated at Manji Ka Hatha and when he was confronted with the photograph Ex.-A/1 of the said godown, he admitted the same; he was not aware of the plaintiffs properties and whether the same were on rent; the room above the suit shop was let-out to Soni and on the second storey, the room was not let-out and the same was lying vacant; he was not aware about existence of the plaintiffs shop at Ada Bazar; he knew Ada Bazar, but was not aware that the shop was situated in Ada Bazar. 27. PW-3 Shyam Manohar stated that he was not aware of the plaintiffs properties, however, he admitted that she had a shop at Ada Bazar but the same was the suit shop only. 28. PW-4 also stated that other than the disputed shop, the plaintiff does not have any shop. 29. Section 13(1)(h) of the Act reads thus:- "Section 13. Eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied. (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... (e) ...... (f) ...... (g) ...... (h) that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord:- (i) for the use or occupation of himself or his family; or (ii) for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premise are held; or (iii) for a public purposes; or (iv) for philanthropic use or ...... " Further Section 14(2) of the Act reads thus:- "Section 14. Restriction on eviction:- (1) ...... " Further Section 14(2) of the Act reads thus:- "Section 14. Restriction on eviction:- (1) ...... (2) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be passed if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Where the court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only. (3) ...... " 30. A bare reading of the above provisions would reveal that while landlord is entitled to seek eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona-fide requirement, the same is subject to restriction regarding satisfaction of the Court about availability of reasonable accommodation to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship being caused to either of the parties. The existence of an alternative accommodation and that the same is not reasonable has to be specifically averred by the landlord, if he is in possession of an alternative accommodation. If no averment in this regard is made and a plea is raised in the written statement about availability of alternative reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff is required to come out with the plea regarding the availability and its being not reasonable either by way of replication or in any case during the course of his statements. However, in the present case neither the plaintiff nor her witnesses stated anything either in the pleadings or in the statements about the fact whether the accommodation was reasonable or not. 31. On the other hand, they indulged in denying the existence of the shop itself at Ada Bazar. However, in the present case neither the plaintiff nor her witnesses stated anything either in the pleadings or in the statements about the fact whether the accommodation was reasonable or not. 31. On the other hand, they indulged in denying the existence of the shop itself at Ada Bazar. From the document filed by the defendant along-with application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, which is a sale deed of the shop situated at Ada Bazar, it is apparent that the said shop at Ada Bazar was available to the plaintiff on 14.11.1994 i.e. well before the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint inserting ground of necessity was filed on 8.9.1995 and was available when the statements of PW-2 Gautam was recorded on 20.5.1998 and was subsequently sold on 20.7.1998. 32. The above conduct of the plaintiff necessarily shows the suppression of crucial material fact, which has implication on the outcome on the issue of reasonable and bona-fide requirement. The application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC seeking to place on record the sale deed dated 20.7.1998 pertaining to the shop situated at Ada Bazar and containing the averments regarding availability of its vacant possession on 14.11.1994, regarding which a plea was taken by the defendant in the written statement is a material document and the same is required by this Court to enable it to pronounce judgment and it is also apparent that despite due diligence, the said document could not be produced by the respondent when the decree appeal against was passed. 33. The twin requirements of Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (aa) & (b) CPC having been satisfied, the application is allowed and the document is allowed to be produced. 34. The explanation by the appellant now by way of their reply to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, which was filed after passage of almost eight years by treating the application to place subsequent event on record, is merely an attempt to skirt the real issue as the fact about existence of the shop was already on record, which was vehemently denied by the plaintiffs witnesses in the cross-examination. On the other hand, the positive assertion was made that the plaintiff was not in possession of any other accommodation. On the other hand, the positive assertion was made that the plaintiff was not in possession of any other accommodation. It was for the plaintiff to plead and prove as to how the said accommodation was not reasonable. 35. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant dealing with crucial date to adjudge need; the implication of subsequent events; the fact that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement has apparently no application to the circumstances of the present case and the law cited is merely an extension or attempt to skirt the issue of availability of reasonable accommodation and its blatant suppression before the trial court. 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores (supra) set aside the judgments of the lower courts on account of failure of the landlord to give explanation as to why the other available accommodation was not found suitable for the business. 37. This Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited (supra) while dealing with similar circumstance of suppression observed that whether a premises was adequate and fit for the requirement of the father of plaintiff was an aspect primarily for the consideration of the plaintiffs and nobody would be dictating as to how they should accommodate or settle themselves, but then, while pleading a case of bona-fide requirement, the plaintiff cannot conceal material facts and cannot make misstatement on relevant facts. The fact of availability of other house or some accommodation in the name of or in the share of the plaintiff was concealed in the plaint and in the said case it was maintained that they were not having any property and after further holding that the case of reasonable and bona-fide requirement is required to be examined for objective point of view and the totality of facts and circumstances was required to be considered, found that in the totality of facts the requirement was not genuine. 38. 38. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation (supra) held that a person who does not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits of his grievance and is not entitled to any relief and a person who tries to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue arising in the case was not entitled to any relief. 39. The First Appellate Court while analyzing the entire evidence available on record, recorded a categoric finding that the plaintiff had suppressed the income of the plaintiff Bilam Kanwar, availability of accommodation at Ada Bazar and availability of business of bread agency and a godown at Paota with Gautam and income of three grand sons of the plaintiff besides Gautam and therefore, found that the requirement of the landlord was not reasonable. The availability of the shop at Ada Bazar at the relevant time is clearly established by the document produced by the respondent before this Court and the other aspects are clearly established from the evidence on record. 40. The finding by the appellate court though was delivered while reversing the finding of the trial court, is essentially a finding of fact and the same cannot be said to be perverse. 41. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the appellate court erred in reversing the decision on issues No.1(a) and 1(b) and that it ignored the aspects relevant for examining the reasonable and bona-fide requirement of the landlord.In view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******