1974 (12) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and decree of Rajasthan High Court dismissing second appeal from District Judge's judgment
- Contesting eviction suit on grounds of personal necessity
- Applicability of Rajasthan Premises Act to the suit premises in Chomu
- Request for revocation of special leave
- Allegations of erroneous judgment by High Court on personal necessity and admission of evidence
- Submission for remitting the case for fresh decision and additional evidence

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed their second appeal from the District Judge's judgment. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction based on termination of tenancy for personal necessity. The Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but the District Judge reversed the decision. The High Court initially dismissed the appeal citing non-applicability of the Rajasthan Premises Act to Chomu, later revoked the judgment upon realizing the Act's applicability, and ultimately dismissed the appeal again on 7-2-1974.

2. The respondents' counsel requested revocation of the special leave granted to the defendants, but the Court decided to proceed with the appeal as scheduled, instead of considering revocation, based on a prior court order.

3. The defendants' counsel argued that the High Court erred in affirming the District Judge's decision regarding personal necessity without a clear finding on bona fide requirement of the premises. They claimed the plaint statements were insufficient for admitting evidence and sought to present additional evidence, which was denied. The defendants urged for remitting the case for fresh decision with the opportunity to present further evidence.

4. The Court found the defendants' arguments lacking merit. It concluded that both the High Court and the District Judge had made appropriate factual findings based on the evidence presented. Despite the defendants' attempt to show the plaintiffs had other shops and did not require the premises for personal use, the evidence was deemed insufficient. The Court upheld the decision not to allow additional evidence at the second appellate stage, as it was not requested at the first appellate level. The Court rejected the plea for remand, stating that the evidence on personal necessity had been adequately considered.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs of the case.