N.P.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decrees of the learned courts below whereby the plaintiff's suit for eviction from the house in dispute has been decreed.
(2.) SINCE the respondent has entered caveat, vide order dated 5.8.2003 record of the learned courts below was ordered to be requisitioned, and thereafter on 6.11.2003, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal was heard for final disposal. In the appeal the appellant has framed seven substantial questions of law. However, from the arguments that have been advanced by both the learned counsel, decipherable questions that have been argued are :- (1) Whether a suit for eviction based on the ground under Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 could be decreed in absence of any pleading in the plaint about non-user of the premises "without reasonable cause" ? (2) Whether the decree for eviction could be passed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity even without recording a positive finding about existence of the need as pleaded in the plaint viz. that the relations between the wife and mother of the plaintiff respondent No. 2 are strained on which account the suit premises are required ? Various other questions argued are only peripheral viz. that the learned courts below were in error in proceeding to decide the ground of eviction contemplated by Section 13(1)(j) by expecting evidence from the defendant, or whether the findings are perverse, or that the suit could be decreed simply because the Court found that the house in dispute remained locked for 16 months, and so on.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, I proceed to consider the appeal on the anvil of the aforesaid substantial questions of law.;