JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff-landlord-Goverdhan Singh against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.1995 passed by the First Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 30/1995 "Ram Gopal v. Goverdhan Singh" by which judgment & decree, while allowing the appeal of the defendant-tenant, the learned First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and eviction decree dated 19.09.1989 passed by the Trial Court of the learned Munsif, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 141/1982 "Goverdhan Singh v. Ram Gopal" by which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed eviction of the defendant from the suit shop in question situated at Maldass Street, Udaipur on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord. 2. 2. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- " fcUnq la[;k 5 o 6% oknhx.k dh vksj ls ;g tkfgj fd;k x;k gS fd oknh ,d fjVk;MZ ljdkjh deZpkjh gS vkSj vc og oknxzLr nqdku ij cSBdj Lo;a ds yM+ds ds lkFk diM+s dk O;kikj djuk pkgrk gSA oknh dh lk{; esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd mldk nkekn igys ls gh diM+s dk O;kikj djrk gSA vkSj og mls bl dk;Z esa lg;ksx djsxkA oknh us ih0MCY;w0&5&lquhy dksBkjh dks lk{; esa is'k fd;k gS tks oknh dk iq= gS vkSj ;g tkfgj djrk gS fd og oknxzLr nqdku ij firk ds lkFk cSB dj diM+s dk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gSA lquhy dksBkjh dh c;ku ds le; djhc 24 o"kZ dh mez FkhA oknh us vius nks nkekn ih0MCY;w0&2&v'kksd dqekj o ih & MCY;w0&3&clUrhyky dks Hkh lk{; esa is'k fd;k gS tks Hkh ;g tkfgj djrk gS fd oknh oknxzLr nqdku esa diM+s dk O;kikj djuk pkgrk gS vkSj og diM+s dk/kU/kk blfy;s lh[k jgk gSA ih0MCY;w0&4&ghjkyky Hkh viuh lk{; esa ;gh tkfgj djrk gS fd oknh oknxzLr nqdku esa diM+s dk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gS rFkk vHkh og isa'kuj gS] blds foijhr izfroknh ds lEcU/k esa oknh us xokgku us ;g dgk gS fd mlds ikl Lo;a dk tks edku jkoth dk gkVk esa gS] mlesa ,d nqdku ekStwn gS vkSj izfroknh Lo;a ljdkjh deZpkjh gS rFkk VsEiks Hkh pykrk gSA izfroknh Lo;a ds vuqlkj og ,d ljdkjh deZpkjh gS rFkk oknxzLr nqdku esa mldh iRuh] yM+dk o ,d ukSdj cSBdj dlhns dk dk;Z dj jgs gSaA izfroknh ds vuqlkj mldk tks ,d edku jkoth dk gkVk esa gS] mlds uhps dksbZ nqdku ugha cfYd ,d LVksj gS] ftlesa [kkyh lkeku jgrk gSA Mh0MCY;w0&2&enu yky 'kekZ ds vuqlkj oknxzLr nqdku esa izfroknh] mldk dkjhxj vkSj izfroknh dh iRuh dlhns dk dk;Z djrs gSaA oknh fjVk;MZ gqvk ;k ugha bl rF; ls izfroknh iw.kZ :i ls bUdkj ugha djrk gSA oknh us fjVk;MZesaV ls lEcfU/kr nLrkost izn'kZ&8 o 9 Hkh i=koyh esa is'k fd;s gSaA mldk dksbZ fjcVy izfroknh }kjk is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g rF; lkfcr ekuk tk ldrk gS fd oknh ,d fjVk;MZ ljdkjh deZpkjh gSA fu%lUnsg vxj dksbZ fjVk;MZ ljdkjh deZpkjh fjVk;jesaV ds i'pkr dksbZ dk;Z Lo;a dk djuk pkgs rks og ,slk djus ds fy;s LorU= gS tcfd izfroknh vHkh ,d ljdkjh deZpkjh gS vkSj fcuk ljdkj dh vuqefr ds og vU; dksbZ O;olk; ugha dj ldrkA oknh dk ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr gS fd oknh ds ikl oknxzLr nqdku ds vykok Lo;a dh vkSj dksbZ nqdku ugha gS tcfd izfroknh ds ikl vxj nqdku ugha gS rks jkoth ds gkVk esa Lo;a dh nqdku ugha rks ,d xksnke vo'; ekStwn gS vkSj oDr t:jr xksnke dks Hkh nqdku ds :i esa dk;Z esa ys ldrk gSA nqdku oknh ds Lo;a dh fefYd;r dh gS vkSj og Lo;a vkSj mldk iq= bl nqdku esa dksbZ O;olk; djuk pkgs rks mUgsa ek= bl vk/kkj ij ;g nqdku ugha feys fd izfroknh dbZ o"kksZa ls ;gka ij O;kikj dj jgk gS vkSj mlus viuh isB tek yh gS rks ;g oknh ds lkFk vU;k; gksxkA izfroknh dh vksj ls ,slk dqN tkfgj ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mls dksbZ oSdfYid ifjlj dlhns dh nqdku ckcr izkIr ugha gks ldrk gks cfYd izfroknh rks vius c;ku esa ;gka rd dgrk gS fd nqdku [kkyh ugha gks rks oknh dks dfBukbZ gks ldrh gS] ;g og ugha crk ldrkA bl izdkj oknh dks tks dfBukbZ nqdku [kkyh u gksus ls gksxh mlls Hkh Lo;a izfroknh Hkh badkj ugha djrk gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd jkoth dk gkVk dlhns dk O;kikj djus ds fy;s mi;qDr LFkku ugha gS rks bl lEcU/k esa gekjh jk; esa oknh ds ikl rks Lo;a ds O;kikj djus ds fy;s dksbZ txg miyC/k ugha gSA ,slh lwjr esa nqdku [kkyh u gksus ij fuf'pr :i ls izfroknh ds eqdkcys oknh dks vf/kd vlqfo/kk gksxh vkSj mldk ,d ukStoku iq= viuk dksbZ O;olk; ugha dj ldsxkA oknxzLr nqdku esa O;kikj dkSu&dkSu yksx djrs gSa] bl lEcU/k esa Hkh izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls tks lk{; is'k dh xbZ gS mlesa fHkUurk gSA izfroknh Lo;a viuh iRuh o yM+ds }kjk O;kikj djuk crkrk gS tcfd mldk Lo;a dk ,dek= xokg mldh iRuh o ukSdj }kjk O;kikj djuk tkfgj djrk gSA vr% ;g iw.kZ :i ls lkfcr ugha gks ik;k gS fd izfroknh dk yM+dk Hkh oknxzLr nqdku esa cSBdj viuh eka ds lkFk dksbZ O;olk; djrk gksA blds foijhr oknh vius ukStoku iq= dks O;olk; djkuk pkgrk gS ftls vHkh viuh ftUnxh dh 'kq:vkr gh djuh gSA vr% oknh dks oknxzLr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr o lnHkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk lkfcr gksrh gS vkSj nqdku [kkyh u gksus dh lwjr esa oknh dks izfroknh ds eqdkcys vf/kd vlqfo/kk gksxhA vr% rudh uEcj 5 o 6 oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA " 3. Upon filing of the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court by the defendant, the learned First Appellate Court, however, reversed the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in the following manner:- " 24- fook|d la[;k 5 ,oa 5&, (Bona fide need of landlord) : bl fook|d ds fy, Hkh eq>s ;g yxk gS fd fo}ku eqfUlQ us lk{; dks ;FkkFkZ :i esa ugha i<+kA blesa ;g Hkwy dh xbZ fd bls lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh i{k ij eku fy;k x;k tks lgh ugha gSA oknh xkso/kZu flag us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og ljdkjh ukSdjh ls lsokfuo'Rr gks x;k vkSj oknxzLr nqdku esa diM+ksa dh nqdku yxkuk pkgrk gSA vr% mUgsa oknxzLr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk gSA bl fook|d ds fy, ,d fu.kkZ;d fLFkfr ;g cu x;h gS fd tc fook|d la[;k 5&, dks fojfpr fd;k x;k] rc bl fook|d ij mHk; dh vksj ls lk{; Hkh yh x;hA ftlesa xkso/kZu flag iqu% ijhf{kr gqvk vkSj mUgksaus ;g ckr Lohdkj dj yh fd muds yM+ds dh jsYos esa ukSdjh yx x;h gS vkSj os t;iqj esa jgrs gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa vc iz'u oknxzLr nqdku dh Lo;a oknh ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk dk jg tkrk gSA 25- bl fLFkfr esa vc ;g iz'u jgrk gS fd D;k Lo;a oknh dks oknxzLr nqdku dh diM+ksa ds O;olk; ds fy, ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkukiw.kZ vko';drk gS] blds fy, lk{; dh ,d fLFkfr Li"V Fkh fd Lo;a oknh dks diM+s ds O;olk; dk dksbZ vuqHko ugha gS vkSj os vius nkekn dh enn ys dj blesa diM+ksa dk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gSA ;g ckr Hkh Lohd'r rF; gS fd oknh jktdh; lsok ls lsokfuo'Rr gks pqdk gS vkSj 2]000@& :i;s isU'ku Hkh fey jgh gSA Lo;a oknh ds vuqlkj mldh vk;q 71 o"kZ ls vf/kd gks pqdh gS] ;g fLFkfr vc orZeku esa ifjofrZr gks x;h gS vkSj og ;g gS fd tc ;g vihy fopkj.k esa py jgh Fkh] rc ml chp fnukad 14-03-1995 dks fu"iknu dh dk;Zokgh djok dj oknh xkso/kZu flag us oknxzLr nqdku dk dCtk Hkh izkIr dj fy;kA xkso/kZu flag tc fook|d la[;k 5&, ds fy, ijhf{kr gqvk] rc mUgksaus ;g dgk gS fd mUgksaus bl nqdku esa dksBkjh ,UVjizkbZtst ds uke ls O;olk; 'kq: dj fn;k gSA bl izdkj vc bu lc ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks/;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g ns[kuk mfpr gks x;k gS fd& D;k oknh xkso/kZu flag dks oknxzLr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoukiw.kZ vko';drk gSA 26- bl laca/k esa Jh xkso/kZu flag ds tks fnukad 22-08-1995 dks dFku gq, gSa] mlesa izfr ijh{kk esa ;g ckr vk;h gS fd bl nqdku ij O;olk; djus ds fy, u rks mUgksaus fdlh dh ,tsUlh yh gS] u os dksbZ ,slk fcy gh n'kkZ lds gSa] ftlds }kjk eky [kjhnk gS] vkSj u lh0,l0Vh0 o vkj0,l0Vh0 ds uEcj gh vius ikl gksuk crk ik;s gSa vkSj mUgksaus ;g dgk gS fd bl nqdku esa mUgksaus ek= pkj&ikap gtkj :i;s dk bUosLVesaUV fd;k gSA ;s lc ifjfLFkfr;ka ;g crykrh gS fd buds gksrs gq, oknxzLr nqdku esa diM+ksa dk O;olk; gksuk langizn yxrk gSA oknh Jh xkso/kZu flag ds iq= dh ukSdjh Hkh yx x;h gS vkSj oknh dks 2]000@& :i;s isU'ku Hkh fey jgh gSA 27- bu fook|dksa ds fy, tks xokg oknh i{k dh vksj ls vk;s gSa] mlesa ok0lk0&2 v'kksd dqekj] ok0lk0&3 clUrhyky] ;s nksuksa oknh ds nkekn gSa vkSj fgrc) lk{kh gSaA oknh ds iq= lquhy dksBkjh us ;g dFku fd;k Hkh ugha gS fd oknxzLr nqdku dh muds firk dks vius O;olk; ds fy, futh vko';drk gksA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g fook|d oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr djus esa fo}ku eqfUlQ us pwd dh vkSj vc orZeku esa ;g fLFkfr gks x;h gS fd mls Hkh ;fn/;ku esa j[kk tkos rks ;s nksuksa fook|d oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr gksus ;ksX; ugha gSaA " 4. Being aggrieved of the reversal of the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, by the learned First Appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal. On 25.03.1996, while admitting the present Second Appeal, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the finding of personal necessity and comparative needs recorded by learned trial court has been illegally set aside by the learned lower appellate court without meeting the reasons given by learned trial court." 5. The learned counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the plaintiff-appellant-landlord informed the Court that during pendency of the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court even, the aforesaid eviction decree of the learned Trial Court was executed and the possession of the suit shop was taken over by the plaintiff-landlord on 14.03.1995 and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit shop and carried on his business of clothes and after reversal of the said decree by the learned First Appellate Court, per force of the interim order dated 24.11.1995 granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the plaintiff-appellant is still continuing to be in possession of the suit shop. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court on wholly erroneous grounds. The plaintiff had retired from the Government service and was getting his pension of Rs. 2,000/- per month and he had no experience of clothes business and he wanted to do this business of clothes with his son, who had already joined a Government job outside the city and he wanted to do this business of clothes with the help of his two sons-in-law, who were already doing this business. He submits that these were not good reasons to deny eviction of suit shop in favour of the landlord. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. S.G. Ojha appearing for the defendant-respondent-tenant supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court. 7. He submits that these were not good reasons to deny eviction of suit shop in favour of the landlord. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. S.G. Ojha appearing for the defendant-respondent-tenant supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court by which, it had reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court about the bona fide personal need of the landlord, this Court is satisfied that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well reasoned findings of the learned Trial Court, quoted herein above, which were recorded after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and the learned Trial Court had taken a correct view of the matter in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that the findings of the learned First Appellate Court, that the plaintiff has no experience for doing the business of clothes, could not be sustained in the eye of law, because, there is no requirement in law to establish any such prior experience or existence of capital to establish any business. The learned Trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiff, a retired Government servant, has bona fide need of the suit shop in question for doing the business of clothes. This Court is further of the opinion that the learned First Appellate Court, without meeting with the reasons given by the learned Trial Court, has reversed the findings and has wrongly denied the eviction decree. In the opinion of this Court, the learned First Appellate Court has reversed the well reasoned findings of the learned Trial Court on the issues of bona fide need and comparative hardship on wholly filmsy grounds. The said reversal decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the eviction decree granted by the learned Trial Court stands executed and in pursuance of the execution proceedings, the possession of the suit shop has already been taken by the plaintiff during the pendency of the first appeal, therefore, this Court finds no justification to uphold the reversal of the decree at this stage when there is no over-riding rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant-tenant. 8. 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Second Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff-Goverdhan singh S/o Chunni Lal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court dated 10.11.1995 is quashed and set aside and that of the learned Trial Court dated 19.09.1989 is restored. The substantial question of law, as framed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as quoted herein above, is answered in favour of the appellant-plaintiff accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******