A.C.GOYAL,J. - (1.) THIS is the second appeal by the defendant-tenant.
(2.) THE plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai instituted a suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the defendant-appellant is the tenant in the suit shop (godown) on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for last so many years. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bona fide requirement. Vide written statement having admitted the tenancy the grounds of eviction were denied. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 (South), Kota vide judgment dated 26.4.2004 decided the issues of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement, comparative hardship and partial eviction in plaintiff's favour and thus decreed the suit. It is made clear that the plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai died during the pendency of the suit, hence Smt. Kaushalya Devi was impleaded as legal representative. First appeal filed by the defendant-tenant was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.9.2004 by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that Smt. Kaushalya Devi admitted in cross-examination that she received the entire rent and thus no case of default in payment of rent and striking out the defence against eviction was made out and she further admitted in cross-examination that she has no agricultural land in her name, hence pleaded requirement is not proved. It was also contended that prior to decision of the Trial Court on 26.4.2004 the case was remanded twice to the Trial Court but the Trial Court decided the suit third time in the same manner and thus findings are perverse and substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal.;