GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS is the civil first appeal by the defendant-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the `defendants') against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 4. 3. 1997 passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 2. 12. 1987 with the averments that the suit house known as `sansar Villa' situated at M. I. Road, Jaipur was let out by the original landlord D. N. Sen at monthly rent of Rs. 230/ -. THE tenancy commenced with effect from 1. 1. 1954. D. N. Sen expired in September, 1967. THE defendants started paying rent to Raghuveer Sen son of D. N. Sen. THE monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 270/- w. e. f. 1. 11. 1962. Raghuveer Sen had filed a civil suit No. 101/80. During the pendency of that civil suit, monthly rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 500/ -. Hence, the suit was got dismissed in default on 15. 7. 1983. Thereafter, the suit house was purchased by the plaintiffs in portions vide registered sale deeds dated 14. 6. 1982 and registered exchange deeds dated 28. 7. 1987 and thus, the plaintiffs became the landlords of the defendants. The defendants were informed vide notice dated 13. 9. 1984 and vide notice u/s 80 CPC dated 7. 9. 1987 which were received by the defendants but the defendants neither paid any rent nor vacated the suit house. The eviction of the defendants from the suit property has been sought on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs; change in use of the premises; sub-letting, material alterations; default in payment of rent, with a further prayer of fixation of standard rent at the rate of Rs. 675/- per month. Rajendra Singh, co-owner in the suit house was impleaded as defendant No. 3 as he was out of the country at the time when the suit was instituted. Vide written statement, the defendants while admitting tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction averred by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- was provisionally determined under section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short `the Act' ). Since the civil suit filed by Raghuveer Sen was dismissed in default, the defendants are not bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It was also pleaded that 2115 Sq. Yards area is in the tenancy of the defendants while only the area measuring 1628 Sq. Yards was given to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deeds and exchange deeds and thus the suit for a portion of the rented premises is not maintainable. Amended pleadings were also placed on record from time to time. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed: 1- D;k izfroknhx. k ds ikl dqy 2115 oxzxt Hkwfe dk ifjlj fdjk;s ij gs vksj oknhx. k dks 1628 oxzxt Hkwfe vurfjr gqbz gs] blh dkj. k fdjk;snkj dk fohkktu ugha gks ldrk vksj okn pyus ;ksx; ugha gsa 2- D;k j?kqohj lsu us iwoz dk okn vne gkftjh esa [kkfjr djok fy;k blfy, ifjlj dk fdjk;k 500@& :- r; ugha fd;k x;k vksj bl nj ls fdjk;k vnk djus ds izfroknhx. k ikcun ugha gs\ 3- D;k oknhx. k dks oknxzlr ifjlj esa gksvy yksftax cksmzl ds :i esa pykus gsrq ifjlj dh ;qfdr;qdr ,oa ln~hkkfod vko';drk gsa 4- d D;k oknxzlrifjlj [kkyh ugha gksus ls oknhx. k dks ceqdkcys izfroknhx. k vf/kd dfbukbz gksxha [k & D;k oknxzlr ifjlj ls izfroknhx. k dk vkaf'kd fu"dklu lehko gs ftlls nksuksa i{kksa dks gh dfbukbz ugha gksxha 5- D;k oknxzlr ifjlj dks fdjk;snkjh 'krksz ds foijhr xksnke o jgk;'k ds dke esa ykuk 'kq: dj fn;k gs vksj ifjlj ftl mn~ns'; ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh mdr mn~ns'; ds dke esa ugha vk jgh gsa 6- D;k fooknxzlr ifjlj dh okni= ds in la- 10 ds vuqlkj dke esa ysdj izfroknhx. k us ifjlj dks mi fdjk;s ij fjekdz vfkok vu; izdkj ls viuk dctk R;kxk gsa 7- D;k izfroknhx. k us oknxzlr ifjlj esa lkjhkwr ifjorzu oknhx. k oknhx. k dh vuqefr ds fcuk fy;s gsa 8- D;k izfroknhx. k us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa Ng ekg ;k blls vf/kd vof/k dh pwd dh gsa 9- D;k oknhx. k ekud fdjk;k fu/kkzfjr djus ds vf/kdkjh gsa 10- vuqrks"k D;k gksa
(3.) EVIDENCE was recorded and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4. 3. 1997, Issues No. 1, 3 to 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-landlords. With regard to Issue No. 8 it was held that the defendants though committed default in payment of rent but being the first default, decree of eviction on this ground could not be passed. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendants but Issue No. 9 with regard to fixation of standard rent was decided in favour of the plaintiffs that the defendants would pay standard rent at the rate of Rs. 675/- per month from the date of filing the present suit. Consequently, the decree of eviction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has challenged the findings of the trial court on all the issues decided in favour of the plaintiff-landlords and defendant No. 3. Issue No. 1 is with regard to the question of splitting the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, trial court came to the conclusion that according to the statement of DW-1 S. C. Gupta, the area of 2115 Sq. Yards was let out to the defendants and the area given to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed and exchange deed is only 1628 Sq. Yards, but DW-1 S. C. Gupta having admitted that the lease deed executed on 26. 12. 1953 and the lease deed executed in June, 1963 were in his possession, the same were not produced in court. DW-1 S. C. Gupta pleaded ignorance about any site plan annexed to the lease deeds and the area, if any, mentioned in the lease deeds and thus, the defendants failed to prove the difference in the area let out and the area purchased by the plaintiffs as pleaded in the written statement. On the one hand, on the basis of oral testimony of PW-1 Lajpat Rai and Ex. 3 to Ex. 14 registered sale deeds as well as registered exchange deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs as well as co-owner Rajendra Singh defendant No. 3, it was found proved that the total area covered by the sale deeds and exchange deed comes to 2268. 45 Sq. Yards. In the result, the trial court held and rightly so that no case of splitting the tenancy is made out. ;