LRs of Bapu Lal vs LRs of Fida Hussain and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Banswara in Civil Appeal No. 11/1997 whereby the learned Appellate Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1996 as passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banswara in Civil Original Suit No. 70/1992.

The civil suit aforesaid was filed by the plaintiff-landlord Bapu Lal seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant-tenant Fida Hussain on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises essentially with the submissions that he was going to retire on 24.11.1994 from a non-pensionary service and hence, wanted to establish cloth business in the suit premises for his subsistence. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit. The learned Appellate Court, however, did not agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court essentially on the consideration that the plaintiff was having substantial alternative accommodation, in the form of 8 shops, available with him where he could carry on business, if so required.

This second appeal by the plaintiff was admitted for consideration on 10.09.1998 with this Court formulating the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the appellate court has committed illegality in reappreciating the evidence specially by not considering that alternative accommodation available to the appellant belonged to the Joint Hindu Family and was situated in residential locality?

(2) Whether the judgment of the appellate court is required to be set aside on the ground that it is no judgment in the eye of law?

During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff unfortunately expired on 26.02.2009; and his legal representatives, sons, daughter and wife, have been brought on record as the appellants.

While taking up this appeal for hearing, it is noticed that the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff while stating the bona fide requirement to the effect that he would be carrying on business in the suit premises for the purpose of earning his livelihood and it is also apparent on record that his sons were engaged in other job/service.

For the reason of the subsequent event of demise of the plaintiff-appellant, for whose requirement alone the suit was filed, this Court is of opinion that the questions aforesaid have been rendered redundant with the requirement as suggested having been eclipsed altogether. In other words, for the requirement having been extinguished with the demise of the plaintiff-appellant, no purpose would be served in adjudicating on the questions aforesaid because even as a result of the answer to these questions, if at all decided in favour of the deceased plaintiff, a decree for eviction on the ground as suggested cannot be passed.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as the formulated questions have become redundant. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the present appellants, legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, shall otherwise be free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law in relation to the premises in question, if so desired and if so advised.

With the observations aforesaid, this second appeal is dismissed for the substantial questions of law having been rendered redundant. No costs.