A.C.GOYAL,J. - (1.) This second appeal under section 100 CPC is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur while setting aside the decree dated 27.9.2000 passed a decree of eviction against the tenant-appellants.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent-Shri Birdhi Chandra filed a civil suit for eviction against the original tenant-Preetam Das in July, 1992 with the averments that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from l.5.1989 and also created nuisance. In written statement, tenancy was admitted but the grounds of eviction were denied. Issues were framed. During pendency of the suit the tenant expired, hence his legal heirs were brought on record. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.9.2000 decided the issue of nuisance against the plaintiff but issue of default was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was also decided that monthly rent agreed was Rs. 175/-. But the learned Munsif declined the decree of eviction on the ground that it was first default, although the defence against eviction was struck out vide earlier order dated 26.5.1995.
(3.) In First Appeal No. 43/2000 filed by the plaintiff-landlord, it was held that since defence against eviction was struck out vide order dated 26.5.1995 and the same was affirmed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the tenants were not entitled to benefit of first default and thus decree of eviction was passed. Hence, this second appeal.;