JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in original civil suit No. 82/1999, whereby the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) and directed defendant to handover the vacant possession of the disputed premises within two months and to pay Rs. 2,400/- per month as use and occupation charges. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent to the effect that they had purchased the Shop No. 83 Bapur Bazaar Chowkdi Vishvesharji, Jaipur from Deep Chand on 25.06.1988 on account of personal and bona fide necessity. They wanted to do business in the suit premises. Defendant took suit premises on rent on lease for 5 years in 1978. Defendant had to vacate the suit premises on 28.02.1983 but defendant had not vacated the same. Plaintiffs and Deepchand gave the information to defendant regarding purchase of suit shop but despite that defendant had not given vacant possession of the suit premises and also defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months. Defendant had not paid or tendered rent from July 1988. Plaintiffs’ sons Sarad and Abhishek attained majority and they wanted to do cloth and marwadi dresses business in the suit premises. They had no place for doing the business anywhere else. If the suit premises are not vacated, then plaintiffs sons would suffer comparative hardship. Partial eviction is not possible. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff and submitted that they had no reasonable and bona fide necessity for the suit shop. Defendant had not defaulted in paying rent. Defendant had sent the rent money to the plaintiff but they refused to accept it. Plaintiff is doing the business for sale and purchase of immovable properties. They wanted to sale the suit property at high rates by evicting them. 4. Plaintiffs had other showrooms also. So, necessity of the plaintiffs is only desire. They had adequate place for the business. Plaintiff is doing the business for sale and purchase of immovable properties. They wanted to sale the suit property at high rates by evicting them. 4. Plaintiffs had other showrooms also. So, necessity of the plaintiffs is only desire. They had adequate place for the business. If eviction decree is passed then defendant would suffer more comparative hardship than plaintiffs. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiffs purchased disputed shop from Deep Chand for business purposes? 2. Whether defendant had not paid or tendered rent from July 1988 to plaintiffs and thus defaulted in paying rent for more than six months? 3. Whether plaintiffs had personal, bonafide and reasonable necessity of the disputed shop for the business of their sons? 4. Whether plaintiffs would suffer more comparative hardship than the defendant if eviction decree is not passed the defendant from the suit property? 5. Whether none of the parties would suffer hardship if partial eviction decree is passed against the defendant from the suit property? 6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get rent of Rs. 2400/- towards rent and house tax with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the defendants continuously on account of use and occupation charges? 7. Relief? 6. To prove their case, plaintiffs adduced the evidence of PW-1 Uday Kant, PW-2 Geeta Mishra, PW-3 Abhishek Mishra and PW-4 Daulat Ram and to prove its case, defendants adduced the evidence of Bhoop Singh as DW-1, Shyamnarayan Dviwedi as DW-2 and Ramesh Kumar Garg as DW-3. 7. Trial Court after hearing the parties passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the disputed premises within two months and to pay Rs. 2,400/- per month as use and occupation charges. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant submits that the trial court had committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. 9. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiffs had changed their necessities by way of amendment. Initially they filed a suit for personal business. After that, they amended the suit for the necessity of their sons Sarad and Abhishek. 10. Learned Sr. 9. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiffs had changed their necessities by way of amendment. Initially they filed a suit for personal business. After that, they amended the suit for the necessity of their sons Sarad and Abhishek. 10. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendants further submits that the necessity of the plaintiffs is not bona fide. 11. Defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before this Court in which it was clearly mentioned that necessity of the disputed shops for the business of plaintiffs’ sons is not bonafide because plaintiff and his son are doing business in the real estate builders and developers in various names viz. Trimurty Apartment, Trimurty Enclave, Luharia Building, Surya Property and Investment, Trimurty Colonizers and Builders, Abhishek Fine Lease Ltd., Abhishek Estate Promoters Ltd. Their business is spread at very large scale. Their sole moto is to get the vacant possession of the disputed premises and to sell it at high value. 12. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiffs were also running the two hotels in Jaipur “The Wall Street” and “The Fern.” Sarad had done the diploma in Hotel Management and Abhishek is Chartered Accountant and looking after the financial management of the group. So, need regarding disputed shop has completely wiped out and eclipsed but the trial Court had not considered these facts. 13. Learned Sr. Counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiffs had sufficient accommodation. So, they would not suffer any hardship if the disputed premises is not vacated. So, the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside. 14. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant also submits that the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for taken the evidence on the application filed by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC because plaintiffs in their reply had not denied the facts mentioned in the application filed by the defendant. So, the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos. 3 and 4 be set aside. 15. Learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and others in Civil Appeal No. 758 of 1978 decided on 07.04.1981 (2) Sheshambal (Dead) through LRs. So, the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos. 3 and 4 be set aside. 15. Learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma and others in Civil Appeal No. 758 of 1978 decided on 07.04.1981 (2) Sheshambal (Dead) through LRs. vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Others in Civil Appeal No. 565 of 2005 decided on February 17, 2010 (3) Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava in Civil Appeals No. 1071 of 2001 and 1072 of 2001 decided on February 7, 2001 (4) Prabha Arora and Anr. vs. Brij Mohini Anand and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2371 of 2007 decided on October 31, 2007 (5) Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal in Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 2001, decided on July 11, 2001 (6) Adiol Jamshed Prenchman (Dead) by LRs. vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1210 of 2005 decided on February 14, 2005 (7) Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. vs. Uttam Chand and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 7608 of 2002, decided on September 8, 2004 (8) Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali in Civil Appeal No. 4244 of 2006, decided on May 26, 2010 16. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the defendant and submits that way of the evidence plaintiffs fully proved their bona fide necessity regarding disputed shop. Plaintiffs need disputed shop for cloth and marwadi dresses business of their sons. In the evidence of the plaintiffs, nothing has come that need of the plaintiffs is mere desire. 17. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that landlord is master of his need and tenant can’t direct him to do business in other place and not in disputed place. 18. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that defendant had not taken any step to get the alternate premises for their business during the pendency of the suit. So, trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the defendant being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 19. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Hukum Chandra (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Nemi Chand Jain and Ors. So, trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the defendant being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 19. Learned Sr. Counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Hukum Chandra (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Nemi Chand Jain and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3827/2014 decided on 14.12.2018 I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the defendant and learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs. 20. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs filed the present suit for their business. After that, they had amended the suit and the amendment suit filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by the trial court regarding disputed shop for the business of their sons Sarad Mishra and Abhishek. Plaintiffs in their evidence fully proved bona fide necessity regarding disputed shop. It is an also admitted position that landlord is masted of his need and tenant can’t direct him to do business at a place other than the disputed premises. Plaintiffs in their evidence clearly mentioned that they had not tried to get alternate place for the business in place of disputed premises. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the appeal filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed. 22. Application filed by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is also dismissed. 23. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed accordingly.