- (1.) THESE two cross - appeals being (1) SB Civil Second Appeal No.15/2006 � Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria, Proprietor, M/s. Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works vs. Balashram Society and (2) SB Civil Second Appeal No.391/2007 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria, have been filed by the tenant and landlord respectively being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 of the appellate court below of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur deciding the cross-appeals of both the parties and while dismissing the defendant � tenant's appeal No.27/2000 � Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria vs. Balashram Society, the learned appellate court below, also dismissed the plaintiff � landlord's appeal No.58/2000 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 of the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Udaipur in eviction Suit No.16/95 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria in respect of suit shop let out on 13.01.1976 for a monthly rent of Rs.120/- to Shri Puran Indoria
(2.) THE eviction suit No.16/95 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria, Proprietor of Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works, Udia Pole, Udaipur, was filed on 19.07.1984, inter alia, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting by tenant to sub-tenant M/s. Kusum Industries, bonafide need of the landlord of the suit premises and alternative accommodation becoming available to the defendant � tenant in the form of an industrial plot No.F-219 situated at Mewar Industrial Area, Road No.1, Madri, Udaipur, in which the defendant � tenant had started manufacturing activities of fabrication of machines, spare parts etc. THE learned trial court decreed the suit of eviction in respect of the suit shop measuring 20 x 30 ft., in which tenant installed lathe machines and was doing miscellaneous engineering and fabrication activities, on the ground than an alternative accommodation became available to the defendant � tenant under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act and decided the issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff - landlord. THE other issues were, however, decided against the plaintiff � landlord, except the issue of default in payment of rent and the benefit of first default was given to the defendant - tenant under Section 13(6) of the 1950 Act. The cross � appeals were filed by both the parties before the learned Appellate Court, which as aforesaid, affirmed the decree of the learned trial court. Hence, the present two second appeals being (1) SBCSA No.15/2006 was filed on 19.12.2005 and (2) SBCSA No. 391/2006 was filed on 27.02.2006 by both the parties before this Court under Section 100 CPC. On 13.01.2006, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial question of law in the Second Appeal No.15/2006 filed by the defendant � tenant : "Whether the two courts below committed error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant on the defendant's acquiring commercial premises for his business particularly, when the tenancy in question is commercial tenancy ?" While admitting the second appeal of the appellant � defendant � tenant No.15/2006, co-ordinate Bench of this Court also stayed the execution of the impugned decree of the eviction, which is still continuing. In the cross-appeal No.391/2007 - Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria filed by the landlord, no substantial question of law was framed so far, however, the said appeal was directed to be heard along with the present appeal of the defendant � tenant on 11.12.2007. Hence final arguments on both these appeals were heard together and both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
(3.) IT is well settled that the eviction decree, even on one of the grounds specified in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 in various Clauses of Section 13(1) (a) to (l) can be maintained and presently the substantial question of law framed in the defendant � tenant's appeal only pertains to eviction granted by both the courts below on the ground specified under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act, which is reproduced as under: Section 13 Eviction of tenants � (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied - (a) ........ to (h) ...... and (k) and (l) ....... (i) that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence; Learned counsel for the appellant - defendant � tenant, Mr. B.R. Mehta submitted that Section 13(1)(i) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 does not apply to the commercial premises or the suit premises used for commercial purposes and it applies only to the residential accommodation and since in the present case, the suit shop was admittedly given for commercial purposes for running a business in the name and style of M/s. Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works, Udia Pole, Udaipur, the learned courts below could not have decreed the eviction merely on the ground of an industrial plot No.F-219, Mewar Industrial Area, Madri having been allotted to the said firm M/s. Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works. Learned counsel Mr. B.R. Mehta further submitted that in the suit shop measuring 20 x 30 ft., the defendant � tenant had set up the Lathe machines on which the fabrication works was being done by the defendant � tenant, whereas different kinds of manufacturing and fabrication activities were undertaken at the said industrial plot No.F-219, Mewar Industrial Area, Madri, Udaipur and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of alternative accommodation becoming available to the defendant � tenant and consequently the courts below have erred in decreeing the eviction suit on the ground specified under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act. ;