AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The delay in depositing the deficit court fees is condoned and the said court fees are accepted. The defect in that regard is deemed to stand cured accordingly.
The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of reversal.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the respondents’ suit for eviction of the appellant on the ground of reasonable requirement.
The First Appellate Court reversed the same on the finding that the accommodation for gymnasium and the other requirements which were pleaded in the plaint were corroborated by the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2, which was not controverted by the defendant/appellant.
We find from the judgments of the Courts below that the facts were entered into in detail by both the Courts. Whereas the learned Trial Judge turned down the eviction prayer on the ground of reasonable requirement primarily in view of the plaintiffs purportedly not having established that the plaintiff no. 1B is imparting training in physiotherapy, which was one of the grounds of requirement, the First Appellate Court categorically observed that the plaint case was corroborated in the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses. There was no cross-examination of such witnesses, nor was any independent evidence led by the defendants. Thus, the averments in the plaint stood corroborated by the oral evidence of the plaintiffs, which had to be accepted by the First Appellate Court by application of the doctrine of non-traverse, in the absence of any cross-examination and/or independent evidence being led by the defendants.
It is also well-settled that in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement, the Court has to sit in the armchair of the plaintiffs. Elaborate evidence need not have been furnished by the plaintiffs to indicate that the plaintiff no. 1B had a physiotherapy degree merely to claim a requirement for opening a physiotherapy chamber, with two rooms for male and female patients respectively as well as an office room, which would be a natural extension of the gymnasium which is already running on the top floor of the premises and is sought to be shifted to the ground floor since, due to extreme heat on the top floor, it is difficult for the clients to undergo training in the gymnasium.
As such, since the tenant cannot determine or dictate the needs of the landlord, we do not find any illegality on the part of the First Appellate Court in granting a decree for eviction.
In any event, no question of law is involved, since the arguments advanced by the appellant are primarily based on factual appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court.
Accordingly, SAT 93 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands dismissed as well.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.