LAWS(RAJ)-1997-7-6

MITTHU LAL Vs. KUNDAN LAL

Decided On July 08, 1997
MITTHU LAL Appellant
V/S
KUNDAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred before this Court by the defendant-appellant who is a tenant in the suit property, situated at Ramlila Nohara Marg, Lalan Gali, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar, bearing Municipal No. 6/335 (old) block No. 1, new Municipal No. 5 which was earlier in the joint ownership of Ghadisiram alias Ghanshyam Dass Agrawal and Ramlal son of Gadhsiram residents of Jaipur and the said property was constructed in 5 blocks, one out of which is in ownership of present respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1996 passed in first appeal No. 58/88 by Addl. District Judge, Beawar against the judgment and decree dated 24-5-1988 passed by Munsiff, Beawar in civil suit No. 46/82 whereby the said appellate court had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent on 21-1-1979 by a registered sale deed and in the meanwhile the appellant who was already inducted as a tenant by the earstwhile owner of the said property continued as a tenant in the aforesaid room and continued his tenancy by attornment by the second owner. i.e. the respondent herein.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant from the suit premises in question was filed by respondent-landlord on 24-2-1982 on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity of the owner landlord under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (for short "the Act of 1950"). On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) The appellant-tenant contested the suit by filing his written statement before the trial Court on the grounds inter alia that (a) all the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord for the period in dispute stood fully paid and that he had deposited in the court the rental dues up to 31-10-1983. He had further stated that he had already been given the benefit of first default as contemplated by the provisions of Section 19A of the Act of 1950 (b) with regard to the plea of bona fide requirement of the suit premises of the landlord, it was contended by the appellant before the trial Court that he had no requirement to occupy the suit premises . He had stated that the appellant was in Government service as Executive Engineer posted at Bikaner and because of his said posting he was entitled to allotment of official accommodation and for this reason he had no bona fide requirement or necessity to occupy the suit premises at Beawar.