C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals arise out of three suits filed by Durga Prasad for ejectment against three different parties in respect of different apartments in the same building situated in the town of Beawar.
(2.) THE suits against Badrimal and Smt. Tikan Bai were decreed by the trial court and the judgments and decrees of the trial court were upheld by the first sppellate court. The suit against Shivenarain was also decreed by the trial court but the judgment and decree by the trial court were reversed by the first appellate court. Consequently, Baridmal and Smt. Tikan Bai have come in appeal against the decrees of eviction passed against them whereas the plaintiff Durga Parsad has filed appeal against Shivennarain from the dismissal of his suit by the first appellate court. The common ground for ejectment taken in all the three cases was that the premises were required for construction of a 'Dharamshala'. a guest room and for providing accommodation to Sadhus etc. coming to the temple. It may be mentioned, here, that the building in question is said to be a trust property attached to the temple of Sheoji. In all the three cases it was prayed that the premises would be rebuilt to meet the requirements of the Trust. In the cases instituted against Badrimal and Smt. Tikan Bai neither any plan of the proposed construction was submitted, nor any permission obtained from the Municipality of Beawar was placed on the record. Not only that, it was not even specified as to which protions of the building would be required for reconstruction and which portions would be left in tact as they stand today. The courts below came to the conclusion that a case for reasonable and bonafide requirement by the landlord was made out. After these two cases had been argued at full length by the learned Counsel for both the parties, learned Counsel for the respondent landlord felt that there had been left deficiencies in setting up the plaintiff's care on account of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to give the necessary particulars as to the requirement of the landlord and therefore he prayed that the plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw the suits with permission to file fresh suits on the same cause of action subsequent to the institution of these suits the Trust has passed a resolution for reconstruction of the building.
(3.) AS regards appeal No. 47571, even though some more material in the form of a resolution of the Trust and site -plan of the building as it stands today were produced, no further material has been submitted so as to make out a case for personal requirement by the Trust. It has therefore been prayed in this case also that the plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.;