- (1.) This is a second appeal against concurrent findings of fact as a result of which, decree of eviction has been passed against the defendant-appellant (tenant) in a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, on the ground of reasonable & bonafide need of the plaintiffs for the suit premises. This judgment will also dispose of two applications filed by the defendant in this second appeal on 17.12.92 and 1.2.1993.
(2.) A suit for eviction & arrears of rent was filed on 27.9.74 against tenant (defendant). It had been averred in the plaint that the suit premises comprised of one garage facing south, Kothree (small room) beneath stair case, and four rooms including one 'tibara' (three-door room) at first floor, in addition to one room at 2nd floor including roof. The suit premises were taken on rent @ Rs. 33/- per month from Smt. Radha Bai under a rent note dated 18.7.59, but the rent was subsequently reduced to Rs. 24. The plaintiffs had purchased the suit garage vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.73 and rest of the suit premises vide registered sale deed dated 30.4.1973 from Smt. Radha Bai. The plaintiffs had sent a registered notice to the defendant about the transfer of the suit premises on the basis of which, the plaintiffs claimed tenancy with the defendant. According to the plaint, a decree of eviction had been sought on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs for carrying on a business of 'Salma Sitara' (embroidery consisting of shining stars among embroidered bands, spangle) in the suit garage and for residence in rest of the suit premises. The need for the suit garage was sought for opening a door of one room adjacent to it which is allegedly closed from all the sides and could be opened only through the garage.
(3.) The plaint was also amended on the averments that, carpet business had been started by Akhilesh Chand (plaintiff) in an adjacent premises in 1977 establishing therein five big & four small looms and, therefore, for extension of the carpet business, the suit garage was needed and rest of the suit premises were needed because they were living in a rented premises and were having no other alternative suitable accommodation for their residence, inasmuch as their landlord namely, Shr Adityendraji had also served upon them a notice to quit pressing them to vacate the premises. It had also been averred in the amended plaint that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case of not passing decree for eviction because, the defendant had already other premises available at Vidhydarji Ka Rasta, Mehmio Ki Gali & other places. The eviction was also sought on the grounds of nuisance, material alternation & default in payment of rent.;