JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-landlords against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court dated 15.12.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 36/2005 Chandumal & Ors. v. Ratanlal (deceased) through his LRs" by which, the learned First Appellate Court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara to the extent of eviction of the defendants, set aside the judgment and reversed the eviction decree dated 24.05.1994 passed by the Munsif Magistrate (West), Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 69/1978 "Ratan Lal v. Chandu Mal & Anr." by which, the learned Trial Court, while allowing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff, directed eviction of the defendants from the suit property, a shop situated at Bhopalganj, Main Road Sadar Bazar, Bhilwara. 2. The appellants-plaintiffs have also challenged the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 96/1994 "Chandu Mal & Anr. v. LRs of Ratan Lal & Anr." on the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by the appellants seeking amendment in the plaint to assert the need of Dalpat Singh in place of the deceased plaintiff-Ratan Lal but the learned District Judge, Bhilwara had dismissed the aforesaid application and declined permission to amend the plaint on the ground that if the application is allowed, the nature of the suit would be changed. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2004, the appellants had filed the Review Petition under Order 47 Order 1 CPC which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara by its impugned order dated 24.10.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 64/2005 "Ratan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs. v. Chandu Mal & Ors." 4. The plaintiff-appellants have filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the eviction decree by the appellate court. 5. Case No. 64/2005 "Ratan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs. v. Chandu Mal & Ors." 4. The plaintiff-appellants have filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the eviction decree by the appellate court. 5. The trial court had granted the eviction decree on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for the suit shop in question giving the following findings:- " oknxzLr ifjlj ds laca/k esa oknh us ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk viuh ;g crkbZ gS fd og vius Lo;a dh nqdku esa vius diM+s dk O;olk; djsxk D;ksafd nqdku eq[; jksM+ ij fLFkr gS rFkk nksuksa nqdkuksa ds chp dh nhokj dks gVk dj vk/kqfud rjhds ls lkt lPtk dj oknh viuk O;olk; pyk;sxkA tks lk{; bl fcUnq ij izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls izLrqr dh xbZ gS vkSj izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrk us tks rdZ fn;k gS mlesa mudk dguk gS fd oLrqr% ;g oknh dh ,d pky gS rkfd og nksuksa nqdkuksa dks [kkyh djk lds rFkk ftl fdjk;s ds ifjlj esa oknh orZeku le; esa diM+s dk O;olk; dj jgk gS ogka mldk O;olk; tek gqvk gS rFkk ogka vU; Hkh diM+s dh nqdkusa gSa vkSj cktkj oLrqr% diM+s dk cktkj gSA izfroknhx.k us oknh }kjk flfoy U;k;k/kh'k HkhyokM+k dh vnkyr esa oknh ds fo:) csn[kyh gsrq izLrqr izdj.k Jherh lksljckbZ cuke jruyky ds okn esa fn;s x;s izfrokn&i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd mDr okn esa oknh us izfroknh dh gSfl;r ls izfrokn&i= ds iSjk uEcj 4 esa mYysf[kr fd;k Fkk fd mlds diM+s dk O;olk; fdjk;s'kqnk nqdku esa tek gqvk gSA yk[kksa dh m/kkjh gS] xzkgdh te xbZ gSA izfroknh ,oa mlds ifjokn dk xqtj clj nqdku esa yxs O;olk; ls gksrk gS vkSj ;fn izfroknhx.k ls nqdku [kkyh djk yh xbZ rks izfroknh dk O;olk; pkSiV gks tk;sxk vkSj izfroknh ds ifjokj dk xqtj clj eqf'dy gksxkA oLrqr% oknh dh bl LohdkjksfDr ds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrk us ;gh rdZ fn;k gS fd oknh dks dksbZ ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk ugha gSA D;ksafd mldh nqdku fdjk;s ds ifjlj esa te xbZ gS vkSj og diM+s ds O;olk; okys cktkj esa fLFkr gS vkSj bl ukrs oknh dh rjQ ls okn odz gsrqd gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrk us ih0M0 cnzhyky tks oknh ds fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dh HkwLokfeuh dk iq= gS] ds dFku ds vk/kkj ij rdZ fn;k gS fd oLrqr% oknh ih0M0&1] ih0M0&2 ds chp nqfHkZlaf/k ds vk/kkj ij okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rkfd viuh lk{; dk leFkZu oknh orZeku esa ftl fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj esa O;olk; dj jgk gS] mlds HkwLokeh ls izkIr dj ldsA ih0M0&2 us U;k;ky; ds le{k tks lk{; fn;k gS mlesa mlus dgk gS fd mldh eka fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dks [kkyh djkuk pkgrh gS vkSj oknh us dgk fd ;fn mldh [kqn dh nqdku [kkyh gks tkrh gS rks og ih0M0&2 dk eka ls izkIr fd;s x;s fdjk;s ds ifjlj dks [kkyh dj nsxkA tc oknh ds ikl vius LokfeRo dh eq[; cktkj esa oknxzLr nqdku fLFkr gS rks mlds }kjk vius LokfeRo oknh nqdku esa viuk O;olk; fd;k tkuk mldh lkekU; vkSj ln~Hkkfod bPNk o vko';drk ekuh tk;sxhA oknh ls ;g vis{kk rks ugha dh tk ldrh fd tc mlls fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj [kkyh djk fy;k tk;s vkSj og lM+d ij vk tk;s rc og vius LokfeRo oknh nqdku ds laca/k esa ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk crk dj nqdku [kkyh djkus ds fy, okn lafLFkr djsA oknh ds vf/koDrk us ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd tc oknh ds fo:) csn[kyh gsrq okn lafLFkr dj fn;k x;k rks oknh dks vius cpko esa dksbZ u dksbZ lgkjk rks ysuk gh FkkA tc oknh dk O;olk; py jgk gks rks og vius fo:) izLrqr gksus okys csn[kyh ds okn esa oknh dh vko';drk Lohdkj dj vius f[kykQ csn[kyh dh fMdzh rks ikfjr ugha dj ldrk Fkk tcfd mlds ikl vius Lo;a ds LokfeRo okyh nqdku fjDr ugha FkhA oLrqr% bl fcUnq ij oknh ds vf/koDrk dk rdZ lkjoku izrhr gksrk gSA oknh ds fo:) okn lafLFkr gksus ls esjs vfHker esa oknh dh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr gks xbZ gS D;ksafd mlds fy;s ;g vko';d gks x;k gS fd og vius ifjlj esa viuk O;olk; djsA oknh ds fo:) lafLFkr fd;s x;s izdj.k esa D;k fu"d"kZ fudysxk vkSj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; D;k gksxk] ;g rks fu.kZ; ds iwoZ dqN ugha dgk tk ldrk ijUrq oknh ds eu esa ;g ;qfDr;qDr la'k; gksuk LokHkkfod gS fd mlds fo:) lafLFkr csn[kyh ds okn esa csn[kyh dh fMdzh mlds fo:) ikfjr gks ldrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd oknh ds fo:) Jherh lksljckbZ }kjk ckn lafLFkr fd;s tkus ls oknh dh vko';drk vkSj Rofjr gks xbZ gS vkSj ;g rF; oknh dh vko';drk dks ln~Hkkfod cukrk gSA izdj.k esa 6&, fook|d dh jpuk ckn esa dh xbZ gSA bl fook|d ds vUrxZr ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k oknxzLr nqdku vkSj cxy okyh nqdku ds mij fLFkr gkWy oknh ds vkf/kiR; esa vk tkus ls mldh vko';drk dh iwfrZ gks xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS fd mij fLFkr gkWy oknh us fdjk;s ij igys xxjkuh VsDlVkbZYl okys dks fn;kA xxjkuh VsDlVkbZYl okys us [kkyh ij fn;k rks oknh us xk;=h Vsyfjax dkWyst dks fdjk;s ij ifjlj fn;kA izfroknhx.k dh ;g lk{; egRoiw.kZ ugha jg tkrh fd oknh us xxjkuh VsDlVkbZYl dks fdjk;s ij fn;k ;k ugha ;k xk;=h Vsyfjax dkWyst dks fdjk;s ij fn;k ;k ugha D;ksafd oknh us vius rjehe lk{; esa Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gS fd nksuksa nqdkuksa ds mij cus gky mlds vkf/kiR; esa vk pqdk gSA tkfgj gS fd orZeku le; esa oknxzLr nqdku o mlds ikl okyh nqdku ds mij cuk gkWy oknh ds vkf/kiR; esa gS vkSj ;g fLFkfr fookn jfgr fLFkfr gh ekuh tk;sxhA izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls tks lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlesa n'kkZ;k x;k gS fd oknh ;fn pkgs rks vius mij okys gkWy esa vius diM+s dk O;olk; dj ldrk gS vkSj O;olk; vklkuh ls py ldrk gSA ;g Hkh mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd HkhyokM+k esa dbZ nqdkusa mij fLFkr gSaA lkekU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nqdkusa uhps gh mi;qDr gks ldrh gSA diM+s dk O;olk; ,d lkekU; izd`fr dk O;olk; gSA diM+s dh nqdkusa gj ekdsZV esa fey ldrh gS vkSj gj ekdsZV esa py Hkh ldrh gSA tgka rd mij gkWy esa O;olk; pykus dk iz'u gS izFke eafty ij ;k nwljh eafty ij ;k rhljh eafty ij ,slk dksbZ O;olk; rks vklkuh ls py ldrk gS tks vius vki esa fojys izd`fr dk gksA mij dh eafty ij dksbZ jk"V~zh;d`r cSad ;k vU; jktdh; ;k v)Zjktdh; laLFkkvksa dk dk;kZy; [kqy ldrk gSA deh'ku ,tsUV dh nqdkusa Hkh gks ldrh gS ijUrq pwafd diM+s dk O;olk; ;fn izFke eafty ;k f}rh; eafty ij [kksyk tkrk gS rks fu%lUnsg O;olk; mruh la[;k esa xzkgdksa dks vkdf"kZr ugha dj ldsxk ftruh la[;k esa Hkwry ij fLFkrA D;ksafd nqdku tc vius fdjk;s dh nqdku esa oknh us viuk O;olk; Bhd <+ax ls pyk j[kk gS rks oknh ls ;g vis{kk rks ugha dh tk ldrh fd og vius O;olk; esa izxfr djus ds ctk; vius LokfeRo ds izFke eafty ij fLFkr gkWy esa viuk O;olk; izkjEHk djds izfroknhx.k dh lqj{kk gsrq vius Lo;a dk O;olk; pkSiV dj ysxkA tc oknxzLr ifjlj dk Lokeh oknh gS vkSj oknxzLr ifjlj eq[; jksM+ ij eq[; cktkj esa fLFkr gS rks fu%lansg oknxzLr ifjlj esa oknh }kjk diM+s dk O;olk; fd;s tkus ls oknh dh vk; esa c<+ksrjh gh gksxh vkSj mldk O;olk; izxfr gh djsxkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd oknh izFke eafty ij fLFkr vius gkWy esa mi;qDr vkSj ykHkizn rjhds ls viuk O;olk; ugha pyk ldsxk vkSj bl ukrs ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh ds ikl ,slk oSdfYid ifjlj gS] tgka og viuk O;olk; ;qfDr;qDr rjhds ls pyk ldsA mij diM+s dh nqdku fLFkr gksus ds laca/k esa tks lk{; izfroknhx.k us nh gS og lk{; Hkh vLi"V gSA tc fdlh O;fDr dks dksbZ fdjk;s dh nqdku miyC/k ugha gksrh gks rks og viuk O;olk; izkjEHk djus ds fy;s ;fn mDr O;fDr dks izFke eafty ij eq[; cktkj esa dksbZ nqdku feyrh gS rks og fdjk;s ij ml nqdku dks ys ysxk vkSj O;olk; izkjEHk djsxk ijUrq HkwLokeh dks bl ckr ds fy;s foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og vius Hkwry ij fLFkr nqdku dks NksM+dj izFke eafty ij [kkyh iM+s gkWy esa viuk O;olk; djs vkSj vius O;olk; dks pkSiV dj ysA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa eSa oknh dh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr ekurk gwaA oknh dk ;g dFku gS fd os nksuksa nqdkuksa ds chp nhokj gVk dj yEch nqdku cuk;sxk vk/kqfud <+ax ls lkt lTtk ds lkFk vius diM+s dk O;olk; djsxk] vuqfpr ugha ekuk tk ldrk tcfd oknh Lo;a dk diM+s dk O;olk; ds :i esa LFkkfir gks pqdk gS rks vius O;olk; dh izxfr ds fy;s iz;kljr jguk mldh izkd`frd vkSj ln~Hkkfod ea'kk gh ekuh tk;sxhA izfroknhx.k dh rjQ ls ;g n'kkZ;k x;k gS fd izfroknhx.k dk rhu O;fDr;ksa dk iwjk ifjokj bl nqdku dh vk; ij vkfJr gS vkSj ;fn oknxzLr ifjlj izfroknhx.k ls [kkyh dj fy;k tkrk gS rks izfroknhx.k dk ifjokj vkSj muds cky cPps Hkw[ks ej tk;saxs D;ksafd ml {ks= esa vU; dksbZ nqdku fdjk;s ij miyC/k ugha gks ldsxhA fu%lUnsg izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr ifjlj okys {ks= esa mi;qDr nqdku <+wa<+us esa vR;ar dfBukbZ gksxh nqdku fey Hkh ldrh gS vkSj ugha feyus dh laHkkouk Hkh gks ldrh gS ijUrq tc oknh dh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr gS vkSj oknh oknxzLr ifjlj dk Lokeh gSA izfroknhx.k oknxzLr ifjlj esa yxHkx 22 o"kksZa ls 110@& :i;s ekgokj ij fdjk;snkj ds :i esa pys vk jgs gSaA rks fdjk;snkj dks ;g /;ku j[kuk pkfg;s fd og ifjlj dk Lokeh rks gS ughaA fdjk;snkj dks bl ckr ds fy;s rS;kj jguk pkfg;s fd mlds fo:) HkwLokeh viuh ;qfDr;qDr vkSj ln~Hkkfod vko';drk crk dj okn lafLFkr djds nqdku mlls [kkyh Hkh djok ldrk gSA vkWy bf.M;k jsUV dUV~zksy tujy] 1979 ( 1 ) 344 ckxk csxe ds n`"VkUr esa bl fcUnq ij mPpre U;k;ky; us izdk'k Mkyk gS vkSj mPpre U;k;ky; dk ;g ekuuk gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj dks {ks= fo'ks"k esa oSdfYid ifjlj ugha fey ldk rc ,slk ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vR;f/kd dfBukbZ dk rF; fdjk;snkj ds i{k esa gSA pwafd oknh ds fo:) mlds }kjk fdjk;s ij fy;s x;s nqdku dks [kkyh djus ds fy;s okn lafLFkr fd;k tk pqdk gS bl ukrs vkSj bl rF; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd rqyukRed n`f"V ls dfBukbZ dk fcUnq oknh ds i{k esa gSA tc 22 o"kksZa rd izfroknhx.k us fdjk;snkj ds :i esa ifjlj dk mi;ksx o miHkksx dj fy;k gS vkSj oknh dh vko';drk ln~Hkkfod vkSj ;qfDr;qDr gS vkSj mlds fo:) csn[kyh dk okn Hkh izLrqr gks pqdk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;gh fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk;sxk fd oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh u gksus dh fLFkfr esa vR;f/kd dfBukbZ oknh dks gksxhA tc ,d ckj izfroknhx.k us vius O;olk; dks tek fy;k gS vkSj O;olkf;d n`f"V ls lEiUu gks pqdk gS rks fu%lUnsg vius vuqHko] vius O;ogkj rFkk xzkgdksa ds rkyesy ds dkj.k ,d NksVs vUrjky ds ckn gh vius O;olk; dks iqu% tek ldus esa leFkZ gks tk;sxk] ,slh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% eSaus fook|d la[;k 2 o 6&, ds laca/k esa mij tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS vkSj tks foospu fd;k gS mlds vk/kkj ij eSa fook|d la[;k 2 o 6&, dks oknh ds i{k esa vkSj izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr djrk gwaA vkns'k 1- oknh oknxzLr ifjlj dk vf/kiR; izfroknhx.k dks csn[ky dj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2- izfroknhx.k oknxzLr ifjlj dk vf/kiR; fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj [kkyh dj oknh dks lqiqnZ djsA 3- oknh okn lafLFkr djus dh frfFk rd p<+s gq, fdjk;s ds 770@& :i;s Hkh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA 4- oknh okn lafLFkr djus dh frfFk ls dCtk izkIr djus rd 110@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls izfroknhx.k }kjk fd;s x;s mi;ksx o miHkksx ds vk/kkj ij /kujkf'k Hkh izkIr dj ldsxkA 5- izfroknhx.k }kjk tek'kqnk fdjk;s dh /kujkf'k dk lek;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA 6- oknh okn dk [kpkZ Hkh izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djsxkA fMdzh ipkZ fu;ekuqlkj cuk;k tkosA ,l Mh@& ( fxjh'k dqekj ik.Ms; ) eqaflQ eft0 if'pe HkhyokM+kA " 6. The learned appellate court however, reversed the same on account of the fact that the landlord-Ratan Lal, for whose need the shop was sought to be evicted, had expired. The learned appellate court however, reversed the same on account of the fact that the landlord-Ratan Lal, for whose need the shop was sought to be evicted, had expired. The findings/observations of the learned appellate court, allowing the defendants' appeal are quoted below:- " 7& mijksDr esa vk;s gq;s fof/k izko/kkuksa vkSj fof/k fu.kZ; ds izdk'k esa vc izLrqr ekeys esa fopkj djrs gSaA oknh jruyky dh e`R;q gks x;h gSA oknh Lo;a gh viuh vko';drk ds fy;s oknxzLr nqdku dks [kkyh djokuk pkgrk FkkA iz'u ;g gS fd D;k oknh dh e`R;q gks tkus ls vc oknxzLr nqdku ds fy, mlds iq= nyir flag ds fy;s fookfnr nqdku ds [kkyh djok;s tkus dh vko'd;rk ds laca/k esa la'kks/ku djok;k tk ldrk gSA esjk er gS fd bldh vuqefr nh tkuk U;k; laxr ugha gSA ,slh vuqefr fn;s tkus ls okLrfod fooknxzLr iz'u dk vo/kkj.k ugha gks ik;sxkA oknh jruyky dh vko'drk mlds iq= nyir flag dh vko';drk ugha gSA bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ us tks fu.kZ; deys'oj izlkn cuke iznweatw dk izLrqr fd;k gS] ;g izes; gSA blesa tks voyksdu ekuuh; nks U;k;ewfrZ }kjk fd;k x;k gS og pyrs&pyrs lgk;d fopkj ds :i esa gqvk gS D;ksafd ,slk iz'u fufgr gh ugha FkkA ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;fn HkwLokeh ej Hkh tkrk gS rks Hkh mlds O;olk; dks mldh iRuh vkSj cM+k yM+dk tkjh j[k ldrs gSaA ,slk djrs le; ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk gh iwoZ esa tks fof/k 'ks[k tgkaxhj cuke dks'kY;k esa rFkk Qwyjkuh cuke ukscrjk; esa izfrikfnr dh xbZ gS dk voyksdu ugha gqvk gSA bu nksuksa gh esa ;|fi Li"V :i ls tks fd fookfnr Hkh Fkk] ds ckjs esa ;g voyksdu gqvk gS fd HkwLokeh dh vko';drk mldh e`R;q ds lkFk gh lekIr gks tkrh gSA ;g vko';drk futh gS] O;fDrxr gS vkSj blds LFkku ij nwljs dh vko';drk izfrLFkkfir ugha dh tk ldrh gSA fu.k;Z j?kqukFk cuke Nxuyky esa i{kdkjksa us lk{; ns nh FkhA mUgsa lk{; dk iwjk volj FkkA ,slk gksus ls HkwLokeh dh e`R;q gksus ij mlds okfjl dh e`R;q gksus ds rF; laca/kh la'kks/ku djok;s x;s gSaA ;gka ij fLFkfr fHkUu gSA ;fn la'kks/ku dh vuqefr nh tkrh gS rks izkFkZuk&i= esa tks rF; vk;s gSa muds laca/k esa u;s fljs ls lk{; yh tkuh gksxhA vr% ;g fu.kZ; Hkh pLik gksus ;ksX; ugha gS fu.k;Z j?kqfryd cuke ,l0 jkI;iku] 2001 MCY;w0,y0lh0 ( ,l0lh0 ) flfoy ist 177 esa dsoy fof/k dk ;g lkekU; fl)kUr izfrikfnr djrk gSA tgka eqdnesckth dks de djuk gks ogka la'kks/ku dh Lohd`fr nh tkus pkfg;sA ;gha fLFkfr Mh0,u0 jsM~Mh cuke Mh0bZ0 jsM~Mh ds laca/k esa dgh tk ldrh gSA fu.k;Z ykywjke cuke dykorh esa HkwLokeh dh vko';drk ifjokj dh vko';drk ekuh x;h ijUrq fu.kZ; Qwyjkuh cuke ukscrjk; esa HkwLokeh vkSj ifjokj dh vko';drk gksus ij Hkh HkwLokeh dh e`R;q gks tkus ij bl vk/kkj dks lekIr gksuk ekuk x;kA vr% ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dk ykykjke dk fu.kZ; ;gka pLik ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA fu.kZ; ,u0ds0 tSu cuke dUgS;kyky ds vuqlkj Hkh ;g fof/k dk gh fl)kUr gS fd la'kks/ku dh vuqefr nsus ij ekeys ds xq.k nks"k tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA fu.kZ; jes'k dqekj cuke dslqjke i'pkrorhZ ?kVuk ij vk/kkfjr gSA ;fn la'kks/ku dh vuqefr ns nh tkrh gS rks vihyxr U;k;ky; 'kiFk&i= ysdu lk{; ys ldrk gSA ;g izfdz;k laca/kh fof/k gSA 8- rn~uqlkj fopkj djus ij ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd bl ekeys esa oknh jru yky MkWxh dh vko';drk mlds lkFk gh lekIr gks tkrh gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ns[krs gq;s mldh vko';drk ds LFkku ij nyir flag dh vko';drk izfrLFkkfir ugha djok;h tk ldrh gSA bl laca/k esa tks fu.kZ; fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ us izLrqr fd;s gSa os gh ekU; gSa la'kks/ku dk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds ckn dk Lo:i ifjofrZr gks tk;sxkA ubZ vko';drk dk fopkj.k djuk gksxkA vr% la'kks/ku vuqefr ;ksX; ugha gSA 9- ifj.kker% izkFkhZ dk vkosnu&i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 10- vkns'k vkt fnukad 17-11-2004 dks fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA ,l0Mh0@& ( th0,y0 pkS/kjh ) ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] HkhyokM+kA " 7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present second appeal before this Court on 17.03.2006 and the following substantial questions of law were framed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.12.2006, while admitting the present second appeal:- "1. Whether the learned lower appellate court was in error in passing the order dated 17.11.2004 and thereby dismissing the plaintiff's application for amendment in the plaint seeking to take pleading in view of the subsequent events taking place during the pendency of the litigation? 2. Whether the learned courts below were right in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for eviction filed inter-alia on the ground of bona fide necessity, on account of death of the plaintiff Ratan Lal, despite the fact that his legal representatives have filed the application for amendment in the plaint seeking to incorporate the pleadings about continued requirement of the family members?" 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants-landlord, Mr. Suresh Shrimali relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors., 2004 AIR SCW 3291 and Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by LRs, AIR 1997 SC 2399 and also of this Court in the case of LRs of Rajendra Kumar v. Balchand & Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 38/2015 decided on 09.04.2015), urged that mere death of the plaintiff-landlord does not vanish the bona fide need of the suit premises, as meanwhile the sons of the plaintiff-appellant-landlord-Ratan Lal had grown up and they were needing the shop in question for the business requirements of the family and the plaintiff-landlord had already one adjacent shop vacant and with the evicted shop in the present case, they could make a big shop for their another business needs. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents-tenants urged that with the death of the plaintiff-landlord-Ratanlal, the bona fide need of the landlord no longer existed, and therefore, the eviction decree cannot be restored and the appellant court's judgment deserves to be upheld by this Court and the questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the defendants-respondents. 10. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present appeal of the plaintiff-appellants-landlord deserves to be allowed and the questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. 11. This Court in LRs of Rajendra Kumar v. Balchand & Ors. (supra), following the previous judgment in the case of Naresh Chand v. Smt. Premlata Bakshi, 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 423, held as under:- "4. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Naresh Chand v. Smt. Premlata Bakshi reported in 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 423, in which this Court has held that bona fide need of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit has to be established and same continues even after death of person(s) for whose need the eviction was sought. The relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "10. Since bona fide need was claimed by the landlord-plaintiff for her husband as well as her son as stated above on the date of filing of the suit and the Courts below concurrently found that the said bona fide need existed on the date of filing suit and while the trial Court granted the decree for partial eviction, the first appellate Court granted the decree of entire residential house in question, the said findings of facts which are based on relevant evidence and material did not deserve to be disturbed at all and the second appeal was liable to be dismissed at the threshold as no substantial question of law could be said to be arising in the present appeal. However, the fact remains that since this appeal came to be admitted by this Court by framing the aforesaid question of law and which remained pending here for long number of 18 years in this Court, subsequent developments in the form of death of husband of the plaintiff and sale of property by her arose. However, the fact remains that since this appeal came to be admitted by this Court by framing the aforesaid question of law and which remained pending here for long number of 18 years in this Court, subsequent developments in the form of death of husband of the plaintiff and sale of property by her arose. The question which arises now in these circumstances for consideration by this Court in the changed circumstances is as to whether now the purchaser of the suit property can get fruits of the decree passed by the Courts below and can get the suit premises evicted or not or whether the defendant - tenant should be allowed to remain in the property for next 20 to 30 years after the new purchaser of the property is asked to file a fresh suit establishing his own bona fide need of the said suit property or on other grounds of eviction as specified in the Rent Control Act. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that not only the question framed by this Court while admitting the present appeal deserves to be answered against the appellant - defendant by holding that the bona fide need of the plaintiff continues even after death of her husband as the bona fide need was claimed for her husband as well as her son and it deserves to be further held that the purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of present second appeal who steps into the shoes of the plaintiff shall be entitled to vacant possession of the suit property in pursuance of the decree passed by two Courts below which is liable to be upheld by this Court as no perversity in those findings is found by this Court. In view of the fact that the bona fide need of the plaintiff - landlord on the date of filing of the suit is relevant, subsequent events in the form of sale of said property does not ipso facto up-set the decree of eviction. The attornment in favour of purchaser was automatic and did not depend upon the acceptance of the same by the defendant - tenant. The appellant - defendant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present second appeal, which is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 5. The attornment in favour of purchaser was automatic and did not depend upon the acceptance of the same by the defendant - tenant. The appellant - defendant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present second appeal, which is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Gupta (D) through LR's v. Riyaz Ahamad & Anr. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 197 . In the said case, the matter was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of subsequent events in the form of death of landlord, who was running business in the suit building and which had fallen vacant due to death of father and also the fact of accommodation was available to the landlord and besides that tenant had alternative space for his business. The matter was thus remanded to the court below to see whether alternative space available to the tenants suitable enough for the tenant or not where he can shift his business without any substantial loss. The relevant paras No. 31 to 33 are quoted herein below for ready reference:- "Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Court in view of the fact that all the facts stated herein need to be gone into after taking evidence on such facts. The effect of the 19 subsequent developments on the bona fide need of the present landlord as well as the comparative hardship of the parties on material facts could not be taken into consideration by the Writ Court without proper evidence on record. However, considering the age of the litigation i.e. 15 years and if the matter is sent back to the Appellate Court, the proceeding may continue for another 15 years, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sending the case back to the Appellate Court for fresh decision in the light of the subsequent developments as noted here in above. 32. 32. In our view, it would have been appropriate and proper and in the interest of justice for the High Court to keep the Writ Petition pending before it and send back the issue on the effect of subsequent developments and supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship to the Appellate Court and after the Appellate Court taking evidence, it shall send back to the High Court, the evidence that would be taken and also the findings arrived at thereon. 33. In the event, the Appellate Court finds it difficult to take evidence on its own, it will be open to it to frame the issue and 20 send the same to take evidence to the Prescribed Authority who, in turn, will take the evidence of the parties and send the same to the Appellate Court for the purpose of considering the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord/appellant and comparative hardship of the parties." 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the judgments and decrees of the courts below and the judgment cited at bar by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants is distinguishable and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only remanded the case back for limited enquiry on the issue as to whether in view of such subsequent developments the issue of comparative hardship was required to be decided. The said judgment is distinguishable from the facts of the present case; and while the settled legal position laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court after following various Supreme Court decision is that bona fide need on the date of institution of suit has to be seen and over long period of litigation even after the death of person for whose need the eviction was sought, the eviction suit does not become infructuous and even the purchaser of the suit property can seek eviction on those grounds if established by the plaintiff on the date of institution of the suit. Here in the present case, a large family of the plaintiff is still there and the family needs for setting up of business even after death of Rajendra Kumar, for whose need the eviction was sought, which has been granted concurrently by the courts below, still exists and may be more so after the death of bread winner in the family and, therefore, the eviction decree cannot be upset merely on the death of Sh. Rajendra Kumar, who is now represented through his legal representatives. 7. Therefore, the question of law, framed above, deserves to be answered in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and the second appeal filed by the appellants/landlord is, accordingly, allowed." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Bai & Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors. (supra) held as under:- " As the preamble shows the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been enacted for expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlords and generally to regulate and control eviction of tenants. If the subsequent event like the death of the landlord is to be taken note of at every stage till the decree attains finality, there will be no end to litigation. By the time a second appeal gets decided by the High Court, generally a long period elapses and on such a principle if during this period the landlord who instituted the proceedings dies, the suit will have to be dismissed without going into merits. The same thing may happen in a fresh suit filed by the heirs and it may become an unending process. Taking into consideration the subsequent events may, at times, lead to rendering the whole proceedings taken infructuous and colossal waste of public time. There is no warrant for interpreting a Rent Control legislation in such a manner the basic object of which is to save harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all times to come. There is no warrant for interpreting a Rent Control legislation in such a manner the basic object of which is to save harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all times to come. (Para 15)That apart the parties having amended their respective pleadings and need of sons had been set up who had all attained majority by that time an the two Courts below having decided the matter on such amended pleadings and the evidence adduced thereon, it was wholly impermissible on the part of the High Court to examine the question as to the effect of death of the original plaintiff and thereafter to dismiss the suit on the finding that his need having come to an end, the suit ought to have been dismissed. It is well settled that when amendment is allowed, the proceedings have to be decided on the basis of such amended pleadings. (Para 16)" 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by LRs (supra) clearly laid down that the bona fide for starting business does not lapse on the death of the landlord. In para 3 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- "3. . . . .Having given an anxious consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and under the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the considered opinion that this case does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Under the Act the order of the appellate authority is final and the said order is a decree of the Civil Court and decree of a competent Court having become final cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution by taking into account any subsequent event which might have happened. That apart, the fact that the landlord needed the premises in question for starting a business which fact has been found by the appellate authority, in the eye of law, it must be that on the day of application for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability of being evicted from the premises. That apart, the fact that the landlord needed the premises in question for starting a business which fact has been found by the appellate authority, in the eye of law, it must be that on the day of application for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability of being evicted from the premises. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court the bona fide need cannot be said to have lapsed as the business in question can be carried on by his widow or any elder son. In this view of the matter, we find no force in the contention of Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the appellant an we do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed." 14. The settled legal position about bona fide need of the landlord by following various case laws is that the landlord himself is the best Judge to decide his need and it is not for the tenant or the court concerned to dictate terms in this regard or substitute its own opinion. 15. 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. 16. 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. 16. 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 dictate 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 bona fides 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." 17. 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. 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. 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." 18. 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)" 19. 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)" 19. 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". 20. 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, Swaran 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." 21. In view of the well settled legal position, the bona fide need of the landlord and his family cannot be said to have been extinguished or vanished with the death of the landlord-Ratan Lal as his sons had grown up and the business needs of the family after the death of the plaintiff-landlord cannot be assumed to have been over with the death of the landlord, and therefore, the said situation cannot be enure to the benefit of the defendants-tenants. It has also been submitted before this Court that the original tenant had also expired and the legal representatives were carrying on business in the said shop in question as of now. 22. Be that as it may, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-appellant-landlord deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants-landlord. 23. Accordingly, the eviction decree of the learned trial court is restored and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court and answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants-landlord, the present second appeal of the plaintiffs is allowed. 24. In the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents-defendants-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the appellant-plaintiff on or before 30.06.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 24. In the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents-defendants-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the appellant-plaintiff on or before 30.06.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rupees Five 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 Six Months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent/defendants/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/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop 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 defendants-tenants 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 Six Months 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. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal allowed. *******