Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent for eviction and recovery of rent has been decreed against him. The plaintiff -respondent filed the suit before the court below for eviction of the defendant -appellant, restoration of possession and recovery of rent inter alia with the pleadings that the property in question was purchased by her from its earlier owner Smt. Chanda Devi by registered sale deed. The defendant -appellant was tenant in the part of the property shown by red colour in the map annexed to the plaint. A civil suit was earlier pending between earlier owner of the property Smt. Chanda Devi and the defendant for eviction on the ground of her personal necessity in which the plaintiff -respondent was also impleaded as party on her own application. It was pleaded that the property was purchased by the plaintiff for personal bona fide need and that she had no alternative accommodation at Chomu. The defendant -appellant did not permit the plaintiff -respondent to enter the premises. Proceedings against her were initiated under Section 107 and Section 116 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of plaintiff.
(2.) THE defendant -appellant submitted written statement and alleged collusion between the plaintiff -respondent and the earlier owner of the premises. Already earlier suit was pending before the court of Munsif. This suit was filed before the higher court by enhancing the valuation and thereby changing the pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff was already impleaded as party in the civil suit filed at the instance of earlier owner at Chomu, the proceedings in the present suit are liable to be stayed. The plaintiff had alternative accommodation to reside. She had her own residential house in the name of her husband situated near Government Hospital, Chomu. He along with her husband and sons was residing there. The defendant -appellant had no other alternate accommodation and that she would suffer greater hardship than the plaintiff if eviction is ordered. The trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues. (i) Whether the plaintiff has purchased the property mentioned in para 4 of the plaint for the purpose of her own residence and that of her husband and the sons? (ii) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises for bona fide and reasonable necessity of her family? (iii) Whether the defendant had been having grudge against the plaintiff ever since the purchase of the suit premises and started threatening her? (iv) Whether the defendant has created nuisance as alleged in para 8 of the plaint? (v) Whether the plaintiff will suffer greater hardship than the defendant if the suit premises is not vacated? (vi) Whether the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the family of the plaintiff would not be satisfied by partial eviction of the suit premises? (vii) Whether the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was a sham transaction being conspiracy? (viii) Whether suit has been properly valued? (ix) Whether the suit is not within the jurisdiction of the Court as averred in para 14 of the written statement? (x) Whether the defendant was entitled to receive damages? (xi) Relief?
(3.) THE issue No. 8 relating to valuation of the suit and issue No. 9 relating to the jurisdiction of the Court were decided in favour of plaintiff by order of the trial court dated 18.4.1996.;