PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) WHILE admitting this second appeal on 18.4.1994, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the defendant-respondent has created nuisance and had done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy ? 2. Whether the defendant-respondent has not used the demised premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of such user ?
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-respondent on the ground that the two rooms situated over the garage were let out to the defendant-respondent on 1.5.1977. It is also stated that the kitchen, latrine and bath-room are situated in the room. The grounds for eviction are default in payment of rent, causing nuisance by putting one big box in the passage obstructing the way leading towards the garage, using the water connection in such a manner which is causing the nuisance in passage resulting into falling of the plaintiff himself and because of this water seepage, the building is being damaged and the last ground for eviction is that the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendant for his own residential purpose but now, the defendant has started his office of advocate in one of the rooms since last more than six months. The defendant denied the allegation of the plaintiff and submitted that the defendant was having his household goods including some heavy articles and one of which was a large box. The defendant, when took the premises on rent, he entered with all his household goods including this large box. Since the staircase was short, therefore, it was not possible to put the box in the rented premises which was in the upstairs. Therefore, from the day of start of tenancy this box was lying in the garage. The defendant also put his cycle and cot in the garage for which he was paying Rs. 10/- extra to the landlord. It is also submitted that other tenants were also used to put their scooters and cycle in the garage. It is also submitted that one saint came from village Siwana, then the plaintiff requested that the garage is required for keeping the car of the saint, therefore, the goods lying in the garage may be put somewhere else, for which the defendant agreed. The plaintiff himself, with the help of his own person, put his box outside the garage but, thereafter, he refused to permit the defendant for putting the box in the garage. Keeping the box in the way is one of the grounds of dispute between the parties.
(3.) THE trial court framed seven issues. The plaintiff gave his own statement before the trial court as P.W.1 and produced witnesses P.W. 2-Gopi Kishan and P.W.3-Paras Mal, whereas the defendant himself appeared in the witness-box. The defendant produced witnesses D.W.2-Dhan Ram, D.W.3-Bhanwar Lal, D.W.4- Jayant Gehlot, D.W.5-Kushal Raj, D.W.-6 Arjun Singh and D.W.7-Manakchand.;