GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 4. 5. 2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 3. 12. 1980 with the averments that the suit house No. L-5-A situated at Prithvi Raj Road, Jaipur was let-out to the defendants at monthly rent of Rs. 11,500/- in the year 1976. THEreafter, first floor, second floor and 1/3rd portion of the basement was vacated by the defendants. THE remaining portion of the basement and the ground floor is with the defendants. THE defendants have got a huge building at Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur and the plaintiffs require the remaining premises for their printing and stationary business which is being carried out in rented premises presently. This requirement is reasonable and bonafide. THE defendants have got suitable alternative accommodation. THEy have made material alterations without the permission of the plaintiffs. A prayer was also made for fixation of standard rent for the portion in occupation of the defendants. Vide amended plaint, it was pleaded that in addition to requirement to carry on their business the suit premises are required for residential use of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs No. 3 to 5 Jay Kumar, Nirmal Kumar and Naveen Kumar are residing separately in rented premises. The defendants vide their written statement having admitted the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with a plea that the requirement is not reasonable and bonafide as the plaintiffs further let-out the first and second floor to the State Bank of India after vacating by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Having heard learned counsel for the parties learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur held that the plaintiffs have proved their requirement to be reasonable and bonafide and that the comparative hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs in comparison to the defendant and partial eviction would not serve the purpose of either party and thus decreed the suit for eviction. The Trial Court further allowed the prayer for fixation of standard rent at the rate of Rs. 7500/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Following points arise for determination in this appeal :- (i) Whether the findings of the Trial Court on the issues of requirement, comparative hardship and partial eviction are justified ? (ii) Whether fixation of standard rent at monthly rate of Rs. 7500/- is justified ?
(3.) FIRST Point:- A brief description of the pleadings of the parties has already been given. Now the evidence has to be looked into. P. W. 1 Nirmal Kumar-the plaintiff stated that in the beginning ground floor along with the basement was let-out to the defendants. Thereafter, first and second floor were also let-out on 7. 7. 1976. Total monthly rent agreed upon was Rs. 11,500/ -. The defendants vacated first and second floor and 2/3rd portion of the basement in the year 1979 as the defendants had got constructed their own building. Thereafter, the first and second floor were let-out to the State Bank of India on monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/ -. These facts as mentioned hereinabove are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the State Bank of India also vacated the first and second floor in May, 1996 and this portion of first and second floor is still lying vacant with the plaintiffs. P. W. 1 Nirmal Kumar further stated that all the three brothers including himself are residing in rented premises. It was also stated that the premises wherein they were carrying on printing and stationery business has already been got vacated by the landlord. It was also stated by him that they will set up their business in the basement and after getting the vacant possession of the ground floor from the defendants all the three brothers would divide the entire house among them for their residence and they have no other premises at Jaipur while the defendants have got a number of other premises at Jaipur. P. W. 1 has given the details of the alternative accommodation available with the defendants. P. W. 2 Jay Kumar and P. W. 3 Navin Kumar both the plaintiffs have supported the statement of P. W. 1 Nirmal Kumar. P. W. 4 Smt. Rinu is the wife of P. W. 3 Navin Kumar. The statement of P. W. 5 Krishna Swaroop was recorded on 3. 2. 1997. According to his statement, the plaintiff Jay Kumar is his tenant for last six years on monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/ -. The statement of P. W. 6 Rajendra Kumar was recorded on 3. 2. 1997. He stated that all the three plaintiffs Jay Kumar, Navin Kumar and Nirmal Kumar are residing in rented premises. D. W. 1 Sh. R. P. Pahwa and D. W. 2 Ramesh Chand have made a general denial on the question of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs. ;