- (1.) THIS first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff ­ landlord aggrieved against judgment and decree dated 21.08.2004 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali, whereby, the suit for eviction filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : plaintiff Kedar Das filed a suit seeking eviction of the respondent tenant from the residential property situated at Pinjaron Ka Baas, Bheru Ghat, Pali with the averments that the suit property was let out to the defendant on 17.10.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.275/ -; the rent was later on increased to Rs.400/ - w.e.f. 01.01.1985; allegations were made in the plaint regarding habitual default in payment of rent, material alteration, non -payment of house tax, nuisance, change in user; besides the other grounds noticed hereinbefore, it was further alleged that plaintiff's son Braj Kishore was suffering from Cancer and, therefore he has left the work of Sales Representative of Agricultural Products and Veterinary Medicines and was unemployed; a suit based on personal necessity against tenant Jetha Ram for eviction from the shop was pending, wherein, the plaintiff alongwith his son would conduct business and in the suit property the family of his son would reside and, therefore, the suit premises was required for personal bona fide requirement; eviction of the defendant from the suit property based on the grounds alleged in the plaint, alongwith loss caused to the house on account of material alteration, outstanding house tax and electricity charges alongwith interest on the said amount was sought in the plaint. A written statement was filed by defendant; it was stated that except for the shop, the entire house was taken on rent; the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the property; the rent was enhanced on account of undue pressure created by the plaintiff; the Printing Press in the suit premises was started with the consent of the plaintiff; the allegations regarding default in payment of rent were denied; the allegations regarding nuisance, material alteration, liability for payment of house tax were denied; it was stated that ordinary place of residence of plaintiff's family has never been Pali and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for possession; the allegations about comparative hardship and partial eviction made in the plaint were also denied.
(3.) A replication was flied by the plaintiff and certain allegations made in the written statement were denied. The trial court framed eleven issues. On behalf of the plaintiff ­ four witnesses including the plaintiff and his son Braj Kishore were examined and six documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant ­ four witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited.;