JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff in a suit for eviction against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Civil Appeal Decree No.13/1991 "Chiranji Lal v. Baldev Kumar" by which, the learned First Appellant Court has set aside the judgment and eviction decree dated 11.09.1991 in relation to the issues No.2 and 6 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.125/1987 "Baldev Kumar v. Chiranji Lal" by which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the eviction suit of the plaintiff-Baldev Kumar on the ground of bona fide need of the plaintiff. 2. 2. The aforesaid eviction suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 11.09.1991 in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of bona fide need of the suit shop in question in the following manner:- fook|d la[;k 2% ;g fook|d oknh dks fookfnr ifjlj dh ln~HkkoukiwoZd ,oa ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk gksus ds laca/k esa gSA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd oknh us fookfnr ifjlj vius O;olk; gsrq [kjhnk mlds ikl vU; dksbZ ifjlj O;olk; gsrq miyC/k ugha gS mlus vius firk dh LVs'kujh dh nqdku esa O;kikj lh[kk gSA O;kikj gsrq iwath Hkh mlds ikl miyC/k gS blfy, og fookfnr ifjlj esa LVs'kujh dk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gSA nwljh vksj fo}ku vf/koDrk izfronh dk rdZ gS fd okLro esa oknh dks fookfnr ifjlj dh vko';drk ugha gS ;g nqdku mlus lLrh feyus ds dkj.k [kjhnh Fkh fdjk;k c<+kus dh ykyp esa mlus 1200@& :i;s izfrekg fdjk;k ekaxk vkSj izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k c<+kus ls bUdkj djus ij mlus ;g nkok is'k fd;kA og la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dk dqaokjk O;fDr gS mlds firk dh us=T;ksfr de gks x;h gS blfy;s og vius firk ds lkFk eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj esa O;kikj dj ldrk gSA blds vykok ih Cykd esa Hkh oknh ds ikl edku gS ftlesa Hkh og jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds uke ls dkih lIykbZ djus dk O;olk; djrk gS rFkk xksy cktkj esa Hkh oknh dh ekrk ds uke ls nqdku gS ftlesa Hkh og viuk O;olk; dj ldrk gSA u;k O;kikj 'kq: djus ds fy;s oknh ds ikl iSlk Hkh ugha gSA blfy;s oknh dks ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk ugha gSA tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ gS fd fookfnr nqdku oknh us lLrh feyus ds dkj.k [kjhnh ds laca/k esa izfroknh us vius dFkuksa esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls irk ugha gS fd oknh us fooknxzLr nqdku fdrus esa [kjhnh mu fnuksa esa cktkj esa nqdku dh D;k dher Fkh og Hkh mls irk ugha gSA blfy;s fookfnr nqdku oknh }kjk de dher ij [kjhnuk izfroknh dh lk{; ls gh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ gS fd fdjk;k c<+kus ds ykyp ds dkj.k ;g nkok is'k fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa oknh dk dFku gS fd twu 1985 esa oknh us mls fdjk;k c<+kus ds fy;s dgk Fkk ml le; oknh ds vykok oknh dk firk Fkk vkSj dksbZ ugha FkkA oknh us mls uksfVl ugha fn;k fd og fdjk;k c<+kuk pkgrk gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; bl laca/k esa is'k ugha dh x;h gSA blfy;s esjh jk; esa izfroknh dh lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd oknh us izfroknh ls fookfnr nqdku dk fdjk;k c<+kus ds fy;s dgk gksA izfroknh ds vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd oknh la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dk dqavkjk yM+dk gS og vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk jgrk gS mldk firk eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj esa dke djrk gS mudh us=T;ksfr de dks x;h gS blfy;s vc og dke ugha djrsA oknh dh mijksDr eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj esa dke djrk gSA blds vykok oknh jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz esa Hkh dke djrk gS blfy;s oknh dks u;k O;kikj djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA bl laca/k esa esjk er gS fd oknh ls izfroknh dh vksj ls izfrijh{kk esa ;g lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k gS fd og dqavkjk gksA izfroknh us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa oknh dks dqavkjk gksuk cryk;k gSA ;fn oknh dks dqavkjk gksuk eku Hkh fy;k tk;s rks Hkh la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dk dqavkjk yM+dk viuk vyx ls O;olk; dj ldrk gSA orZeku esa HkkSfrd ;qx esa vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk O;kikj djus ds izo'fRr /khjs&/khjs lekIr gksrh tk jgh gS vkSj izR;sd uo;qod dh ;gh ykylk gksrh gS fd og viuk u;k O;kikj 'kq: djsa vkSj vius iSjksa ij [kM+k gksA xokg txnh'k jk; Mh0MCY;w0&2 ds dFkuksa ls vkSj oknh ds firk Jh txnh'k jk; ds vU; U;k;ky; esa gq, c;kuksa dh udy izn'kZ ,&56 ls vo'; fofnr gksrk gS fd oknh ds firk dh us=T;ksfr vc de gks pqdh gS vkSj mUgsa de fn[kkbZ iM+rk gSA fdUrq blh lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd oknh dk firk vc O;kikj djus ds yk;d ugha jgk gks vkSj mudh us=T;ksfr fcYdqy [kjkc gks pqdh gksA us=T;ksfr de gksus ds mijkar Hkh og viuk O;kikj dj ldrk gSA blds vykok oknh ds fy;s ;g Hkh vko';d ugha gS fd og vius firk ds lkFk gh O;kikj djsaA oknh us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa dgk gS fd og vius firk dh us=T;ksfr de gksus ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh dks vc u;k O;kikj djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA tgka rd jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds uke ls O;kikj djus dk iz'u gS ;g lgh gS fd oknh us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd og jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds uke ls dkWih fdrkcksa dh lIykbZ djus dk dk;Z djhc ,d o"kZ igys djrk Fkk vc mls lIykbZ dk dk;Z ugha fey jgk gS blfy;s mlus ;g dke cUn dj fn;kA izfroknh dh vksj ls bl ckcr~ lk{; is'k ugha dh x;h gS fd oknh vHkh Hkh dkWih fdrkcksa dh lIykbZ djus dk dk;Z djrk gksA blfy;s oknh ds dFkuksa dk ugha ekuus dk dksbZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gS blfy;s ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd oknh vHkh Hkh jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds uke ls dkWih fdrkcsa lIykbZ djus dk dk;Z dj jgk gSA bl izdkj esjh jk; esa ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd oknh ds ikl orZeku le; esa mldk Lora= :i ls dksbZ O;kikj ugha gS og 23&24 o"kZ dk uo;qod gS mlus viuh f'k{kk lekIr dj yh gS vkSj mldk dFku gS fd mlus vius firk dh nqdku eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj ij cSBdj LVs'kujh dk;Z dk vuqHko izkIr dj fy;k rFkk mlds ikl ,d yk[k :i;s dh iwath Hkh miyC/k gSA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd oknh vHkh rd c;ku nsus ds fnu rd mlds firk dh nqdku esa cSBdj dk;Z dj jgk Fkk ,oa mlus ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds ikl vk; ds Jksr ugha gSa blfy;s oknh dks u rks O;kikj dh vko';drk gS vkSj u gh u;k O;kikj 'kq: djus dh fy;s mlds ikl iwath miyC/k gSA oknh us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og vkt rd vFkkZr c;ku nsus dh fnukad rd vius firk dh nqdku ij cSBrk gS vkSj dke lh[krk gSA bldk rkRi;Z ;g ugha gS fd oknh dks u;k O;kikj 'kq: djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA tc rd og iw.kZ:i ls O;kikj esa O;Lr ugha gksrk gS rc rd csdkj cSBk gqvk ;fn vius firk dh nqdku ij tkdj cSBrk gS rks ;g ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh dks u;k O;kikj djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA oknh uo;qod gS vkSj mls vyx ls O;kikj djus dh vko';drk gS vius firk dh nqdku ij mlus LVs'kujh dk dk;Z djus dk vuqHko izkIr fd;k gSA oknh ds ikl O;kikj gsrq iwath miyC/k ugha gks ;g Hkh vfHkys[k ij vk;h lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gSA oknh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds ikl vk; dk lk/ku ugha gS fdUrq iwath gksuk mlus Lohdkj fd;k gSA mldk dFku gS fd 50 gtkj :i;s jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds O;kikj ds fy;s yxk;s Fks fookfnr nqdku [kjhnus ds fy;s Hkh 1]11]000@& :i;s yx;s FksA vk; esa vkSj iwath esa QdZ gksrk gSA vk; ykHk dks dgrs gSa tcfd iwath ,d fQDl jkf'k gksrh gS iwath gksrs gq, Hkh fdlh O;fDr dh vk; ugha gksuk laHko gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd fdruh iwath mlds firk ls yh vkSj fdruh mlus [kqn us vftZr dh gqbZ gS ;g oknh ugha cryk ldrk gS blfy;s ;g lkjh iwath oknh ds firk dh gh gS vkSj oknh ds ikl iwath gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA mUgksaus ujsUnz dqekj cuke eqy[kjk] 1991@1 vkj0lh0vkj0 ist 320] dk fu.kZ; is'k dj rdZ fn;k fd ;fn fdlh edku ekfyd ds ikl u;k O;olk; 'kq: djus ds fy;s iwath miyC/k ugha gks rks mldh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr ugha ekuh tkosxhA fdUrq esjh jk; esa oknh ds ikl iwath gSA ;fn ;g eku Hkh fy;k tkos fd oknh dks lHkh iwath mlds firk us nh gS rks Hkh ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd oknh ds ikl iwath ugha gSA Hkkjrh; lekt ,oa laLd'fr esa iq= ds O;olk; gsrq ekrk&firk vkSj mlds fj'rsnkj iwath yxkrs gSa blfy;s firk }kjk iwath yxkus ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh ds ikl iwath ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh us tks fu.kZ; is'k fd;k gS ml fu.kZ; ds rF; vkSj izLrqr izdj.k ds rF; fHkUu gSaA ml fu.kZ; ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj edku ekfyd ds ikl O;olk; 'kq: djus gsrq iwath Fkh gh ugha tcfd izLrqr izdj.k esa oknh ds ikl iwath gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA pkgs og iwath mlds firk us nh gSA blfy;s ;g rdZ Hkh fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd oknh ds O;olk; gsrq nwljk ifjlj Hkh miyC/k gS ,d ifjlj esa oknh ds firk dk eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj] nwljk ih Cykd esa edku rFkk rhljk 55 xksy cktkj esa oknh ds ekrk ds uke nqdku gksuk crk;k gSA ih Cykd okyk deku fjgk;'kh edku gSA izfroknh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;g edku fjgk;'kh gS ;k O;olkf;d mls irk ughaA oknh ds dFkukuqlkj ;g edku fjgk;'kh gS blfy;s 106 ih Cykd dk edku fjgk;'kh gksus ds dkj.k blesa oknh viuk O;olk; ugha dj ldrk gS ;|fi jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz dk O;kikj blh ifjlj esa fd;k Fkk fdUrq ;g dk;Z dkWih fdrkcsa lIykbZ djus dk Fkk ftlesa oknh ds dFkukuqlkj cktkj esa dke djuk o lIykbZ vkns'k izkIr djuk Fkk vkSj ?kj ls lIykbZ djrk Fkk tcfd LVs'kujh ds O;olk; ds fy;s cktkj esa nqdku gksuk vko';d gSA 58- xksy cktkj esa tks nqdku oknh dh ekrk ds uke gS ftlesa oknh dk HkkbZ U;wt ,stsUlh dk dk;Z djrk gS blfy;s ;g nqdku Hkh [kkyh ugha gSA eYgks=k ,tqds'ku LVksj oknh ds firk dk gS ftlesa ;g fgLlsnkj ugha gS vkSj og vius firk ds lkFk O;olk; ugha djuk pkgrkA blfy;s esjh jk; esa oknh dks vius O;olk; gsrq vU; dksbZ ifjlj miyC/k ugha gS og vius firk ds lkFk O;kikj djuk ugha pkgrk gSA blfy;s mlus fookfnr nqdku [kjhnh gSA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ghjkyky diwj cuke izHkq pkS/kjh] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1988 lqizhe dksVZ ist 852] dk fu.kZ; is'k fd;k ftlesa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k fd edku ekfyd }kjk O;kikj djus dh bPNk tkfgj djuk gh i;kZIr ugha gS okLro esa mls O;kikj gsrq vko';drk ugha pkfg;sA izLrqr izdj.k esa esjh jk; esa oknh Lora= :i ls O;olk; djuk pkgrk gS vius firk ds lkFk jgdj O;olk; ugha djuk pkgrk] vU; dksbZ ifjlj miyC/k ugha gS o mlus nqdku [kjhn dh gSA nqdku lLrh feyuk vkSj fdjk;k c<+kus dh ykylk gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA blfy, esjh jk; esa oknh dks fookfnr ifjlj dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko';drk gSA blfy;s ;g fook|d oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1991, the defendant-tenant has filed the first appeal before the learned first appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Srigangangar which was allowed on 22.02.1996, while reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court, in the following manner:- " 20- lEiw.kZ lk{; oknh bl izdkj O;Dr djrh Fkh fd oknh vius firk ds lkFk jgrk Fkk] mlds firk dh nqdku og o"kZ 1982 ls cSB jgk gS] mlds ikl Lo;a vk; dks dksbZ lk/ku ugha gS] nqdku orZeku esa oknh }kjk pkgs tkus okys O;olk; ds ;ksX; ugha gS] tc rd fd bls nqckjk uohuhdj.k ugha fd;k tk;sA oknh ds HkkbZ Lo;a xksy cktkj esa eYgks=k U;wt ,tsUlh ds uke ls dkjksckj djrs gSaA mlds firk@la;qDr ifjokj dh nqdku fookfnr nqdku ds fpirk eYgks=k ,T;qds'ku LVksj ds uke ls gSA oknh ds firk dh uS=T;ksfr {kh.k gks pqdh gSA og i<+us esa dfBukbZ eglwl djrs gSaA Lo;a oknh ds firk ;k mlds HkkbZ lk{; nsus ds fy, oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSaA oknh ;g ugha crk ldrk gS fd nqdku esa O;olk; fdl iwath ds cy ij djsxk rFkk og /ku iwath mls fdl O;fDr ls fdu lkslZ ls izkIr gksxhA oknh ;g ugha crk ldk gS fd fookfnr nqdku dh uohuhd'r djokus ds fy, og dgka ls /ku yk;sxk ;k og /ku mls fdlds tfj, izkIr gksxkA oknh dk ;g Lohd'r rF; gS fd mlds firk dk O;olk; yxHkx ogh gS] tkts izfroknh dk gSA 21- fu'p; gh iqLrdksa ds O;olk; gsrq us= T;ksfr gksuk ,d egRoiw.kZ rF; gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g QkbZfMax Hkh iw.kZr;k xyr ,oa dYiukvksa ds vk/kkj ij dh Fkh fd oknh ds firk dh vka[ksa detksj gks tkus ds ckn Hkh og viuk O;olk; dj ldrk FkkA fo'ks"kdj ;g QkbZfMax ml ifjfLFkfr esa tcfd Lo;a oknh ds firk ijhf{kr ugha fd, x, gksa] iw.kZr;k dYiuk ds vk/kkj ij FkhA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd jktLFkku iqLrd dsUnz ds uke ls dkWfi;ksa dh lIykbZ djrk Fkk ijUrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh ;g QkbZfMax dYiukvksa ij vk/kkfjr Fkh fd oknh us O;olk; gsrq ,d yk[k :i;s dh iwath izkIr dj yhA bl laca/k esa oknh dh lk{; iw.kZr;k ux.; Fkh] ;g Hkkj oknh ij Fkk fd og viuh iwath ds L=ksr dks U;k;ky; esa crk,A fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g Hkkj izfroknh ij LFkkfir dj fn;k fd izfroknh fl) djs fd oknh ds ikl iwath dk dksbZ L=ksr ugha gSA oLrqr% ;g Hkkj oknh ij Fkk fd og okafNr O;kikj djus gsrq iwath dk L=ksr ;k ,dkm.V vius lk{; esa O;Dr djrk tks oknh ih0M0&1 }kjk O;Dr ugha fd;k x;k gSA 22- fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ujsUnz dqekj cuke eqy[kjkt] 1991 ( 1 ) vkj0lh0vkj0 320] izLrqr dh FkhA bl ekeys esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ;fn fdlh edku ekfyd ds ikl vU; O;olk; 'kq: djus ds fy, iwath miyC/k ugha gS rks mlds vko';drk dks ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk gksuk ugha ekuk tk;sxkA 23- esjs le{k lUrks"kdqekj cuke Hkxor izlkn] 1991 ( 2 ) vkj0lh0vkj0 19 iatkc ,oa gfj;k.kk] izLrqr dh xbZA bl ekeys esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd tgka HkwLokeh dh lk{; dqN rF;ksa ds ckjs esa vfo'oluh; ekuh xbZ gS ogka mldh lk{; detksj izd'fr dh gS tks fd mlus nwljs rF;ksa ds ckjs esa nh gSA yfEcr ekeys esa izfroknh }kjk oknh ij ;g vk{ksi yxk;k x;k Fkk fd oknh us orZeku fdjk, ls vf/kd fdjk, dh ekax dh rFkk twu esa mlls ckjg lkS :i;s izfrekg fdjk;k ekaxk vkSj nsus ij fdjk;k ugha fy;kA QyLo:i izfroknh fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa tek fd;kA ;g rF; Lo;a oknh ih0M0&1 dks izfrijh{k.k esa lq>k;k x;k FkkA Lo;a oknh us iwath dk L=ksr izLrqr ugha fd;k Fkk] mlds firk ;k HkkbZ ijhf{kr ugha gq, Fks] uxj ifj"kn~ esa fookfnr nqdku ds uohuhdj.k ckcr~ oknh }kjk dk;Zokgh pkgh xbZ] O;Dr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfroknh }kjk dgk x;k dFku fd vf/kd fdjk, dh ekax dh xbZ] oknh ds bl dFku dks fd mldh vko';drk ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod gS] fo'okl ;ksX; ugha NksM+rh FkhA 24- fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ghjkyky cuke izHkq pkS/kjh] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1988 lqizhe dksVZ i'"B 852] izLrqr dh xbZ FkhA fu.khZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd edku ekfyd }kjk ek= O;kikj djus dh bPNk tkfgj djuk gh i;kZIr ugha gS okLro esa mls O;kikj gsrq ln~Hkkfod ,oa ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk lkfcr djuh pkfg,A vfHkHkk"kd oknh jsLik.MsUV }kjk Hkkjr isV~ksfy;e cuke t;izdk'k xksiky] 1990@2 vkj0lh0vkj0 787] izLrqr dh xbZA bl ekeys esa rF; fyf[kr ekeys esa iw.kZr;k fHkUu gSA blesa Lo;a HkwLokeh fdjk, ds edku esa jgrk Fkk ,oa mldk ifjokj dkQh c<+ pqdk gSA 25- fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh ds ikl O;kikj gsrq iwath gksuk] oknh ds firk ds uS= T;ksfr orZeku esa mlh O;olk; ds fy, lqpk: gksuk rFkk oknh ds ikl ,d yk[k :i;s dh iwath gksuk] ;g rhuksa rF; iw.kZr;k dYiuk ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr lk{; ds foijhr of.kZr fd, x, FksA oknh }kjk izLrqr lEiw.kZ lk{; O;Dr djrh Fkh fd fookfnr ifjlj O;kikj ;ksX; ugha gSa blds uohuhdj.k dh vko';drk gSA bl gsrq oknh us uxjifj"kn esa dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dj nh gSA oknh ds firk ds ikl vk; dk dksbZ lk/ku ugha gSA oknh ds firk dh uS= T;ksfr {kh.k gks pqdh gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ujsUnz dqekj cuke eqy[kjkt ,oa ghjkyky cuke izHkq pkS/kjh dh uthjsa Li"V djrh Fkh fd oknh dh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod ,oa ;qfDr;qDr ugha gSA izfroknh Mh0M0&1 ds dFkuksa dks fdjk;k c<+kus ds laca/k esa vfo'oluh; ekuus dk Hkh dksbZ dkj.k ugha FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk rudh la[;k 2 dk fu.kZ; jsLik.MsUV oknh ds i{k esa ,oa vihyk.V ds fo:) fu.khZr djus esa rF;kRed ,oa dkuwuh =qfV dkfjr dh xbZ FkhA " 4. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree dated 11.09.1991 of the learned Trial Court, by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.1996, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the present second appeal in this Court on 25.05.1996 and, while admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:- "(i) Whether the first appellate Court has reversed the finding given by the learned trial court on Issue No. 2 on the basis of conjectures and surmises and misreading of appellant's evidence ? (ii) Whether the finding given by the learned first appellate Court on the non-availability of alternate accommodation to the defendant is based on conjectures and misreading of evidence ?" 5. The learned counsel, Mr. Vishal Singhal, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant urged that the learned First Appellate Court has fallen into error in substituting its own opinion and held on surmises that on account of the weakness of the eyesight of the landlord, the bona fide need of the plaintiff for establishing a book-shop cannot be said to be genuine and, therefore, the need asserted by the plaintiff cannot be countenanced, which is a mere desire of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that such substitution of the opinion is not countenanced in law as per the settled legal position and, as held in the catena of judgments, the landlord is the best judge of his need and a tenant cannot dictate the terms about the need of the landlord. The learned counsel referred to the various decisions of the different Courts in support of their contention, which are discussed herein below. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. Arpit Gupta and Mr. Tarun Dudia, appearing for the defendant-respondent submitted that the only source of the income of the defendant is the suit shop in question, in which he carried on the business of selling stationery which is a very small business and if the defendant is evicted from the suit shop in question, he would be deprived of his livelihood. Tarun Dudia, appearing for the defendant-respondent submitted that the only source of the income of the defendant is the suit shop in question, in which he carried on the business of selling stationery which is a very small business and if the defendant is evicted from the suit shop in question, he would be deprived of his livelihood. The learned counsels also submitted that the view taken by the learned first appellate court that the mere desire of the plaintiff cannot be said to be bona fide need of the plaintiff is correct and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.02.1996 of the learned first appellate court does not require any interference by this Court. The learned counsels submitted that the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant deserves to be dismissed and the substantial questions of law framed in this case deserve to be answered in favour of the defendant-respondent-tenant and against the plaintiff-appellant-landlord. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal of the appellant-plaintiff-landlord deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law framed and quoted herein above deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-respondent-tenant. This Court is of the opinion that the learned first appellant court has apparently fallen into an error, while giving the finding that a person with the weak eyesight cannot run the business of selling of the books. In the considered opinion of this Court, such business of selling of books can be run with the help of assistant and employees or family members and, therefore, the finding of the learned first appellate court in this regard cannot be sustained. This Court also finds force in the contention of the learned counsel, Mr. In the considered opinion of this Court, such business of selling of books can be run with the help of assistant and employees or family members and, therefore, the finding of the learned first appellate court in this regard cannot be sustained. This Court also finds force in the contention of the learned counsel, Mr. Vishal Singhal, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant that the need of the suit shop in question asserted by the plaintiff, whose father was running the business of the same kind in another shop and the plaintiff was sitting in the shop of his father for gaining the experience, was also relevant in the present case and the son had the proper eye-sight also and in these circumstances, the learned first appellate court's impugned judgment and decree dated 22.02.1996 is liable to be dismissed and that of the learned Trial Court dated 11.09.1991 is liable to be restored. The landlord is the 'Best Judge' to determine his business need and the tenant cannot dictate terms in this regard. 8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 252 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the eviction is sought for bona fide requirement of landlord, the relevant date on which the said need has to be adjudged is the date of filing the suit and subsequent events taking place during the period of litigation like engaging in other activity or business for which premises in question is required do not upset such bona fide need unless such subsequent events are of such a nature & dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether and the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief when litigation at last reaches the final stage. 9. In Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishnan - (1996) 5 SCC 353 , the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement observed as under:- "The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dicate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dicate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court was rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thought that because of her age she needed to be looked after. That was a lookout of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for. There is nothing to sh ow that she had any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of the family friend. On the other hand, she was there merely by sufferance. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The High Court was in error in laying down that the test is availability of alternative accommodation and not the legal right to such occupation in adjudging the bonafides of the claim of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In considering the availability of alternative accommodation, the Court has to consider not merely whether such accommodation is available but also whether the landlord has a legal right to such accommodation. The appellant had established her bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and her claim could not be disallowed merely on the ground that she was staying as a guest with a family friend by force of circumstances." 10. More over, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in a recent decision of two Judges bench in Satyawati Sharam v. Union of India - (2008) 5 SCC 287 , which has been later on reaffirmed by three Judges bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & anr. v. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors. - (2009) 9 SCC 772 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly noticed that even the trend of Apex Court has shifted from pro-tenant from 1950s to 1990s to pro-landlord from 1990s onwards. The relevant extracts from the judgments in case of Satyawati Sharma (supra) & Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. are quoted below for ready reference: "12. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. The relevant extracts from the judgments in case of Satyawati Sharma (supra) & Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. are quoted below for ready reference: "12. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgments of 1950s to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. In these cases the Court consistently held that the paramount object of every rent control legislation is to provide safeguard for tenants against exploitation by landlords who seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation of a large number of people looking for a house on rent for residence or business in the background of acute scarcity thereof. However, a different trend is clearly discernible in the later judgments." The relevant para 71 of the judgment of Apex Court in Super Max International (P) Ltd. (supra) is quoted below for ready reference: "71.We reaffirm the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma and emphasise the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the relationship between the landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. (The case of the present appellant who is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. in a building, situate at Fort, Mumbai on a rental of Rs. 5236.58/-,plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" 11. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. 5236.58/-,plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" 11. This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms:- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bona fide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bona fide need for his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business". 12. In the case of Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 this Court has held under:- "Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant-tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bona fide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit." 13. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff-Baldev Kumar stands allowed and the substantial questions of law, framed and quoted herein above, are answered in favour of the plaintiff-landlord-Baldev Kumar and against the defendant- tenant-LRs of Chiranji Lal. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith. 14. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent-defendant-tenants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property, i.e., the suit shop in question, to the appellant-plaintiff-landlord on or before 31.12.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.3,000/- per month (Rupees Three Thousand only) commencing from the month of January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the appellant/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellant/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellant/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the, suit property, i.e., shop in question or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The respondent-defendant-tenant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the appellant-plaintiff within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid, as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellant-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.Appeal allowed. *******