- (1.) THIS First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short C.P.C.) is preferred against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 16.3.1993, in Civil Suit No. 81/88, whereby decree of eviction from the suit premises was passed in favour of the plaintiff landlord Shri Kashi Prasad (here-in-after referred to as `the plaintiff') against the defendant tenant Shri Purshottam Das (here-in-after referred to as `the defendant' (now both deceased).
(2.) THE relevant facts for decision of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 26.7.1984, with the averments that northern flat in the Plot No. A-11 at Jaipur, was given on monthly rent of Rs. 375/- to the defendant on 1.6.1976, which was enhanced to Rs. 450/- from 1.1.1978. THE plaintiff sought eviction on the following grounds :- (i) that the defendant committed default in payment of rent for more than six months i.e. from February 1979; (ii) that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff; (iii) that the defendant has sub-let a part of the premises to one Abdul Rajjak without permission by way of the amended plaint:- THE following two grounds of eviction were added by way of emended plaints :- (iv) that the defendant has created nuisance, and (v) that the defendant has changed the use of the premises. The defendant denied all the allegations in his written statement. It was pleaded by him that the plaintiff has got four flats in Plot No. A-11 and earlier tenants have already vacated other flats in this plot and thus the plaintiff has got suitable accommodation. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff several times asked him to enhance the rent upto Rs. 1,000/- but he did not agree. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- *********** The plaintiff apart from himself, examined P.W. 2 serva Shri Girraj Prasad Agarwal, P.W. 3 Chandra Ranka, P.W. 4 Shanker Lal and P.W. 5 Upendra Kumar. The defendant tenant examined himself as D.W. 1, D.W. 2 Sharad Sahu, D.W. 3 Abdul Rajjak, D.E. 4 Harish Kumar Gupta and D.W. 5 Rajiv Krishna. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decided all the issues except Issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent. However, Issue No. 1 was partly decided in favour of plaintiff that default in payment of rent was proved not from February 1979 as pleaded but from October, 1983.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence oral as well ad documentary. Now the question arises as to whether the findings of the trial court on Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to 7 are justified or calls for any interference by this Court ? On the point of default in payment of rent, the contention put forward by learned counsel for the defendant is that this issue was wrongly decided in favour of plaintiff because the case of the plaintiff was not found proved that rent is due from February 1979. Thus, a new finding of default in payment of rent from October 1983 was impermissible. Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (In short the Act,) provided that one of the grounds of eviction would be where the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 26/7/1984. The rent was found due from October, 1983. The rent of fact has not been disputed by either party in this appeal. Hence, it was rightly decided by the trial court that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for a period of more six months. ;