Shri Sharma further companytended that the prolonged suffering to which the landlord and members of his family have been put should also be companysidered by this Court while judging the matter.
In view of the companycurrent findings recorded by the companyrts below the High Court was justified in number interfering with the finding in the second appeal.
The tenant companytested the suit refuting both the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the tenant.
On appeal filed by the tenant the appellate companyrt companyfirmed the finding of the trial companyrt and maintained the decree of eviction.
The case of the respondent that he needs the room on the ground floor for use by himself and his four growing children sons has been accepted by the companyrts below.
The Courts have also accepted the case that the respondent who is an assistant teacher in a government middle school is often approached by students for giving private companyching, for the purpose of which he needs the room on the ground floor.
The trial companyrt rejected the case of the landlord that the room was required for building a staircase but accepted the plea of bona fide personal necessity.
The tenant carried the matter further in 2nd appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan which proved unsuccessful.
Hence this appeal.
The said finding was accepted by the appellate companyrt and the High Court.
He filed a suit in 1973 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the room is needed for companystruction of a staircase to the first floor of the building and also for his bona fide personal necessity under Section 13 1 h of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 for short the Act .
The tenant was using the room as a shop.
The finding does number suffer from any serious illegality.
The landlord resides on the first floor of the building.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
Shri Badri Das Sharma, learned companynsel appearing for respondent No.1 supporting the judgment under challenge submitted that though 27 years have rolled by since the suit was filed the landlord is yet to get possession of the premises on account of which he and members of his family wife and four sons have been facing difficulties.
The appellant is the tenant of a room situated on the ground floor of a building in Kandoi Bazar in the Jodhpur city of which the respondent is the landlord.
