PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is a second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 4th April, 1998 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendant Hurmat and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 4th April, 1998. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for eviction against the defendant Hurmat and one Jafar Mirza alleging that the suit premises was purchased by the defendant No. 2 from one Noorjaha by registered sale deed dated 7.1.61. The defendant No. 2 after purchase of the house in dispute sought permission from the Municipal Board, Bikaner for additional alteration and he converted this house in two portions. In one of the portions defendant No. 2 started living and the other portion was given on rent to one Jagdish for a rent of Rs. 15/- per month. Jagdish vacated the house in the year 1972 and in the year 1973 the portion, which was in possession of Jagdish was let out to defendant No. 1. Since then, the respondent No. 1 Hurmat was residing in the premises. The said portion in which the defendant No. 1 was tenant was purchased by the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 4.1.80. It is stated by the plaintiff that the vendor informed the defendant No. 1-tenant that the premises has been sold out to plaintiff, therefore, she may give rent to the vendor-plaintiff. It is said that no rent was paid by the defendant, therefore, the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff on the grounds of default, denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant and also on the ground of denial of title and for personal bona fide need of the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendant No. 1 submitted written statement and denied the plaint allegations and claimed that she is owner of the property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 nor she is in occupation as tenant.;