- (1.) THE instant second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 29/05/2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate Court") in civil regular appeal No. 13/12 (23/12), whereby the appellate Court has confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 24/02/2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in civil suit No. 368/93 (36/92) and in suit No. 305/93.
(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that the plaintiffs -respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendants -appellants with regard to the suit premises. In the plaint it is stated that the suit premises were given on rent to the defendants -appellants @ Rs. 250/ - per month. The eviction was sought on the ground of personal bonofide necessity of respondent No. 2 -plaintiff No. 2 Sh. Gopichand who wanted to start a business pertaining to polish and repairs of wooden furniture and its sale on basis of commission. The eviction was also sought on the other grounds of default in payment of rent for a period of about 15 months, nuisance, alternate accommodation, material alteration.
(3.) A written statement was filed by the defendants -appellants wherein the defendants -appellants admitted the fact with regard to tenancy. So far as ground with regard to bonafide necessity, was denied and it was stated the the premises in dispute is situated in cloth market and in no manner can be used for the purpose stated in the plaint. The defendants do not have any accommodation other than the suit premises for running a cloth business and plaintiff have an alternate vacant premises in the ground floor where the husband of plaintiff No. 1 used to carry on business of cutting of woods which has ceased to be of use owing to death of husband of palintiff No. 1. The rest of the grounds and averments in the plaint were denied. Another suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the defendants -appellants (plaintiffs therein) wherein it was stated that two shops were taken on rent from Late Sh. Brijesh Kumar who was husband of Smt. Krishan Devi (defendant therein) @ Rs. 250/ - per month. It was after the death of Mr. Brijesh Kumar that Smt. Krishna Devi became the landlord of premises in dispute. Late Shri Brijesh Kumar and his wife Smt. Krishna Devi entered in to an agreement with the plaintiffs (defendants -appellants herein) on 6.5.1985 and obtained a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - from the plaintiffs (defendants -appellants herein) and promised that the same can be returned by way of making appropriate adjustments in the rent. The said sum was taken on interest @ 18% per annum. From 11.8.1986 to 15.8.1986 late Shri Brijesh Kumar alongwith his wife re -paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and with regards to rest of the money i.e. Rs. 20,000/ - both the parties again entered into an agreement dated 16.6.1986 that the same can be returned by way of making appropriate adjustments in the rent. Despite the aforesaid agreement Late Shri Brijesh Kumar and his wife requested the plaintiffs not to adjust the rent against the said sum and thus rent was duly paid by the plaintiffs. On 15.12.86 Brijesh Kumar expired owing to which Smt. Krishna Devi requested the plaintiffs to not adjust the rent against the said sum and thus rent till 30.4.1987 was paid by plaintiffs. It was stated that sum of Rs. 20000/ - alongwith interest @ 18% per annum has still to be repaid by defendants therein to plaintiffs. It was stated that the plaintiff was entitled to the aforesaid sum alongwith interest i.e. 18% per annum w.e.f. 16.8.1986 which is to the tune of Rs. 3600/ -.;