- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.14 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.5, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Appeal No. 197/12, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8.2.02 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) No.3, Ajmer City (East), Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 701/83.
(2.) In the instant case it appears that the respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking eviction of the appellants-defendants from the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity. The said suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants, however the trial court after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit premises bonafide. The trial court had also held that the appellants had committed default in making payment of rent for the period of six months, however, the trial court gave the benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court the appellants had preferred the appeal before the first appellate court which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.
(3.) At the outset it is required to be noted that though the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 23.4.14, the present appeal was filed on 19.7.14 and thereafter had remained pending for admission till 31.10.14, on which date the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff had produced on record the certified copies of the record of the execution proceedings to submit that the possession of the suit premises has already been taken over by the respondent-plaintiff. It appears that since there was no stay against the execution of the decree, the respondent-plaintiff had filed the execution proceedings and taken the possession of the suit premises through the process of court. Of course the said possession has been disputed by the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur for the appellants by stating that the household articles of the appellants are still lying in the suit premises and the possession was taken through the Sale Amin when the appellant-plaintiff had gone out of station for some reason. Be that as it may, since the said report of the Sale Amin handing over the possession of the suit premises to the respondent has not been challenged by the appellants in any proceedings, it is required to be held that the possession of the suit premises has been handed over to the respondent-plaintiff.;