Mohan Lal vs Rais Ali

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

Besides oral submissions, the appellant has also filed the written submissions.

This is defendant/tenant''s Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.9.2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 410/2008 affirming Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 93-A/2003. Plaintiff brought a suit for eviction from the house bearing No. 89 Gautam Nagar PGBT Road, Bhopal, let out to the defendant on the ground of bonafide need and the arrears of rent. As to bonafide requirement plaintiff pleaded that he has eight sons and four of them being unmarried, one of them Rizwan Ali being getting married has no suitable place to settle down as presently they are living together jointly at Swagat Lodge, situated at Bajaria. As to rent the plaintiff contended that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 1.3.2002 to 30.11.2003 (21 months).

Defendant denied plaint allegation.

Trial Court framed six issues and after taking into consideration the evidence on record concluded that the plaintiff having succeeded in establishing the bonafide need and that the defendant is in arrears of rent decreed the suit.

As to bonafide need the trial Court found:

These findings are concurred with by the Appellate Court. Being pure findings of facts contentions that; both the Courts returned the perverse finding cannot be accepted in absence of cogent material on record. Reference to streak of evidence here and there will not in the considered opinion of this Court render the findings arrived at after entire evidence including the version relied upon by the Appellant rendered the findings as perverse.

Decision in Sonelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another: 1927 JLJ 763, Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Chaudhary, since turn on their own facts, learned counsel miserably fails to establish their assistance in the present case. As the principle of law laid down in those judgments viz., Sonelal (supra) and Punit Rai (supta) are not attracted in the present case.

There being no substantial question of law, no indulgence is caused. Consequently, Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.