- (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.2007, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4 Jaipur City, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Suit No. 88/02(170/98), whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff), against the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original defendants), directing the defendants to hand-over vacant possession of the premises in question to the plaintiff and further restraining the defendants from transferring, assigning or parting with the possession or sub-letting the said premises to any third party, and further directing the defendants to pay the mesne profits at the rate of 2375/- p.m. till the possession was handed-over to the plaintiff.
(2.) In the instant case, there are certain undisputed facts which may be narrated as under:- 2(i) Initially Smt. D.Lawrie, the mother of the appellant No.1 and the respondent No. 2 and 3, had taken the suit premises, being the Plot No.37, Bhagwan Das Road, CScheme,Jaipur, with building having construction of two floors, on rent from the original owner one Shri Manohar Lal Oberai, at Rs. 1200/- p.m. plus house tax. The said Manohar Lal sold out the said suit premises to one M/S Phool Chand Virendra Kumar, HUF by a registered sale deed on 18.1.1973. The said M/S Phool Chand Virendra Kumar had filed one suit being No. 240/80 in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur for eviction against Smt. D. Lawrie and Smt. Sheela Khanna. During the pendency of the said suit, the said M/s. Phool Chand Virendra Kumar further sold out the suit property to M/S O.R. Properties i.e. the present respondent No.1-original plaintiff, by executing the registered sale deed on 24.6.1994. The said original tenant Smt. D. Lawrie expired on 7.10.1994. The plaintiff of the said suit had submitted an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the said Smt. D. Lawrie, however the court did not grant the same, and thereafter the said suit was dismissed by the said court as having been abated vide the order dated 19.1.1996. 2(ii) Thereafter, the present respondent No. 1 (original-plaintiff) M/S O.R. Properties filed the suit being No. 170/98(88/02), before the trial court seeking possession of the suit premises from the present appellant No.2, the respondent No.2 and the respondent No. 3(original defendant Nos. 1 to 3) alleging interalia that Smt. D. Lawrie was staying at U.S.A. where she had expired in 1994 and that none of her sons had ever stayed with her or run the school in the suit premises, as they were also permanent residents of U.S.A. It was also alleged that the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises had not devolved upon the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and that the defendant No.3 Smt. Sheela Khanna was in possession of the suit premises and was running a school therein as the sub-tenant. The possession of the suit premises was also sought by the plaintiff on the ground of bona fide necessity and of non-payment of arrears of rent, invoking Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises ( Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Since the present appellant No. 1, Shri Neon Lawrie though was one of the sons of the deceased Smt. D. Lawrie, was not made party-defendant in the suit, he had moved an application under O. 1 R. 10 of C.P.C. on 9.5.2000 for being impleading him as the party-defendant, on the ground that until the death of his mother Smt. D. Lawrie, he was looking after and managing the affairs of the school in the suit premises along with his mother and therefore was a necessary party to the suit. The said application was allowed by the trial court and the appellant No.1 was impleaded as the party -defendant No. 4 in the suit. 2(iii) The suit was not contested by the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original defendant Nos. 1 and 2), however was contested by the present appellants (original defendants Nos. 4 and 3 respectively), raising various contentions. It further appears that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff M/S O.R. Properties filed another suit for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises under Section 6 of the said Act. The said suit was subsequently dismissed for default. 2(iv) In the suit in question, the trial court had framed as many as fifteen issues out of which issue Nos. 1,8,10,11,12 and 14 were answered in favour of the plaintiff, and rest of the issues in favour of the defendants, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, vide the impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C.
(3.) In the present appeal, both the learned senior counsels Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Mehta for the respondent No. 1 have made their respective submissions at length and relied upon plethora of decisions of the Apex Court and of the High Courts, which shall be dealt with hereinafter as found necessary.;