JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/9/2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and judgment & decree dated 7/12/2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bhilwara has been reversed and consequently the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed. 2. The suit was filed on 24/1/1992 by the respondent landlord seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit shop and for recovery of arrears of rent inter alia with the averments that the suit shop was situated at Sarafa Bazar, Bhomiyon-ki-Gali, Bhilwara, which was let out to the appellant-defendant on a rent of Rs.100/-per month. It was alleged that the rent was in arrear since 1/1/1991 and on the date of filing of the suit, 12 months’ rent was due. Allegation regarding material alterations in the shop by putting up iron sheets on angles on the wall above the gate of the shop were also made. 3. Further submissions were made that the area of the shop in which the plaintiff was carrying his business of ‘Pan Shop’ was 6’x3’, which was adjoining the suit shop with only a wooden partition in between, the plaintiff’s shop was too small and the plaintiff’s son also is doing business with him in the shop, both the them cannot sit in the shop at the same time and one is required to stand on the street or go home. Further, the shop was too small to accommodate all the goods. Submissions were also made that the plaintiff’s income was too low and it was very difficult to take care of the family from the said income and for the purpose of augmenting his income, he wanted to start wholesale business of ‘Bidi’, Cigarette, Pan Masala and confectionary items, which was not possible in the present shop. Indications were made that the plaintiff wanted to merge the suit shop with his shop by removing the wooden partition so that he can conduct his wholesale business and support his family well. With the above submissions, reasonable, bonafide and personal necessity also was claimed. 4. Indications were made that the plaintiff wanted to merge the suit shop with his shop by removing the wooden partition so that he can conduct his wholesale business and support his family well. With the above submissions, reasonable, bonafide and personal necessity also was claimed. 4. Submissions were made that there will be no hardship to the defendant if the shop was vacated and that plaintiff would suffer greater hardship in case the shop was not vacated and that partial eviction was not possible. 5. Written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant denying the averments made in the plaint. It was claimed that entire rent was paid, the shop was on rent with him since 1971 and that the rent was increased in January, 1991 to Rs.100/-p.m. and a fresh rent note was executed. Allegations were made that the landlord, only with a view to increase the rent, did not accept the rent, which was sent by money order and the same was ultimately deposited by him under the provisions of Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and as such, no default has been committed in payment of rent. Allegations pertaining to material alterations were also denied. Regarding bonafide necessity of the suit shop, it was stated that the plaintiff has given his other shops on rent and they fell vacant from time to time, therefore, it cannot be said that the need was bonafide. 6. Based on the above submissions of the parties, the trial court framed seven issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant also three witnesses were examined and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court decided the three issues pertaining to default in payment of rent, material alteration and reasonable & bonafide necessity in favour of the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-respondent filed first appeal. The first appellate court by its impugned judgment, though upheld the findings on the aspect of default in payment of rent and material alteration, reversed the finding of the trial court on the issue pertaining to reasonable and bonafide necessity and came to the conclusion that the requirement of landlord was reasonable and bonafide and consequently allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 9. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed the present second appeal. A coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 28/11/2013 while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial question of law: ^^vk;k izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;qfDr;qDr lnHkkfod vko';drk ds Øe esa fook|d la[;k&3 ds rgr izR;FkhZ&oknh ds ikl vU; oSdfYid ifjlj ds Øe esa vius foospu ds tfj;s fook|d la[;k&3 izR;FkhZ&oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr djus esa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV dh gS\^^ 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was the specific case of the defendant that the respondent-plaintiff let out certain shops belonging to him from time to time and which were available to him for doing the business as claimed, however, admittedly, the same was not done and, therefore, the plea of bonafide requirement has no basis. 11. Submissions were made that the trial court came to a specific conclusion while dealing with the issue pertaining to bonafide necessity that when the shop was let out in the year 1991 by way of new rent note (Ex.1-A), filing of suit within one year simply shows that the same was change of heart. Further, the trial court also concluded that partition in the shop was made in the year 1991 only and, therefore, there was apparently no necessity. Further, the trial court also concluded that after the shop was let out in the year 1971 to the defendant, three shops were let out to other tenants, which shows that the plaintiff had no requirement and even after filing of the suit, whenever the said shops were vacated by the tenants, the same were again let out to others and as such, the plea of bonafide necessity had no basis. However, the appellate court has wrongly concluded that the shop was bonafidely required by the landlord without even adverting to the fact that from time to time other shops were available to him and they were let out by the landlord to other tenants and, therefore, on that count the finding recorded by the appellate court is perverse and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the trial court had passed the judgment on conjectures and surmises by wrongly concluding that the wooden partition in the shop was put in the year 1991 and the suit was filed within one year from letting out of the shop, however, factually the shop was let out in the year 1971 after putting up wooden partition and only after revision of rent in the year 1991 a new rent note was executed and merely because a new rent note was executed qua the shop, which was in possession of the tenant, it cannot be said that the same was let out in the year 1991 and the suit was filed within one year of letting out of the shop. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that the allegation made in the written statement regarding letting out of other shops pertain to the period when the landlord had constructed the shops in distant past and not after the bonafide requirement arose to him and, therefore, the plea regarding alternative accommodation has no basis. It was emphasized that merely because after filing of the suit, certain other shops became vacant and they were let out cannot be a reason in coming to a conclusion that the bonafide requirement of the landlord ceased inasmuch as it is nobody’s case that the said shops which were vacated during the pendency of the suit i.e. over a period of 15 years were similarly placed to that of the suit shop and were not used by the landlord. It was submitted that only the suit shop was on the main road and other shops were on the side lane and looking to the nature of plaintiff’s business i.e. a Pan shop, only a shop on the main road was required for the purpose and that also by removing the wooden partition. 14. Further it was emphasized that it is the landlord alone, who can decide about his bonafide requirement and it is not for the tenant to suggest that he can utilize the other shops, though not available and/or appropriate for the business. 15. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta : (1999) 6 SCC 222 , G.C.Kapoor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin & Ors. 15. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta : (1999) 6 SCC 222 , G.C.Kapoor vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin & Ors. : (2002) 1 SCC 610 and Prabhu Lal vs. Purshotam Lal : S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 1/2013 decided on 25/2/2014. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record as well as the record of the two courts below. 17. It is not in dispute that the entire shop in question ad measures 6’x8’, while 6’x3’ is with the landlord and 6’x5’ is with the tenant, with a wooden partition in between. The shop admittedly was let out in the year 1971 and only in the year 1991 with the revision of rent, a fresh rent note was executed by the tenant and the present suit came to the filed in January, 1992. The trial court apparently by wrongly concluding that the shop was let out in the year 1991 and as the suit was filed in the year 1992, held that there was no bonafide requirement of the landlord, which determination has been reversed by the appellate court. Besides the fact that the reversal is correct, neither any argument has been raised nor any substantial question of law has been framed. 18. The substantial question of law, which has been framed essentially pertain to the purported availability of the alternative accommodation to the landlord. A perusal of the entire evidence led by the parties clearly suggests that though the defendant in the written statement made submissions about letting out of other shops, the said shops were let out at the time they were constructed by the landlord in distant past. During the course of cross examination of the plaintiff suggestions were made regarding letting out of the shops after the suit was filed, however most importantly no suggestion whatsoever was given that the shops let out during the pendency of the suit could have fulfilled the requirement of the landlord. 19. It has specifically come on record that while the present shop is on the main road, rest of the shops are on the side lane. 19. It has specifically come on record that while the present shop is on the main road, rest of the shops are on the side lane. Admittedly, the plaintiff & his son are having their business of Pan shop for over three generations, as plaintiff’s father was also running the same shop & son has also joined the business, and the area of the shop, as noticed, is only 6’x3’, which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as sufficient for two persons to conduct the business simultaneously by sitting in the shop. 20. The first appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff was not starting a new business, which could be started in any other shop, as the requirement was for expanding the existing business by removing the wooden partition and as the business of the plaintiff is settled in part of the shop, it would be absolutely unreasonable to require the landlord to shift his business to another shop inasmuch as settled business carries with it the goodwill which is directly associated with the place of business. The said finding recorded by the first appellate court cannot be faulted. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant took the Court through the statement of landlord and his son, however, failed to point out any perversity in the finding recorded by the first appellate court, which though did not elaborately indicate the evidence pertaining to the alternative shops but has rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord cannot be required to shift to some other place where he can expand his existing business by getting the suit shop vacated. 22. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law as framed is answered in the manner that the appellate court did not commit any mistake in deciding the issue no. 3 in favour of the respondent - plaintiff. 23. Consequently, there is no substance in the second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 24. 22. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law as framed is answered in the manner that the appellate court did not commit any mistake in deciding the issue no. 3 in favour of the respondent - plaintiff. 23. Consequently, there is no substance in the second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 24. However, looking to the fact that the tenant is in possession of the suit shop for over 50 years, the appellant is granted six months’ time i.e. upto 28/2/2022 to vacate the suit shop on payment of mesne profit as already ordered during the pendency of the present appeal by order dated 27/3/2014 i.e. @ Rs.1,500/-per month in the manner the same is being paid under the said order. 25. No order as to costs.