Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.09.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur and appellate judgment and decree dated 08.05.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent -landlord has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants -tenants has been dismissed, respectively.
(2.) THE plaintiff -landlord filed a suit on 07.12.2002 for eviction from the property situated at Fort Road, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur on the grounds of default and bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlord and her son Arvind; it was, inter alia, indicated that the defendants have failed to tender the due rent since January, 1995 and, therefore, they have committed default in payment of rent; it was averred that the plaintiff was working as Teacher with Rajkiya Mohta Balika Ucha Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Rajgarh, her husband has retired and she was to retire within three years, her permanent residence is at Jodhpur, her son was working at Jodhpur in the name of Shri Dayal Network, doing work of sale and repair of computers and its parts; on account of own premises being occupied, the son is working from premises near public park on rent; the premises are required by her reasonably and bona fidely, in case the premises are not vacated she would suffer comparatively more hardship; ultimately, it was prayed that the vacant possession of the premises be got delivered to the plaintiff and mesne profit to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ - per month be also decreed. The defendants -tenants filed their written statement and the averments contained in the plaint were denied; it was claimed that the due amount of rent has been deposited under the provisions of Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control and Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 upto December, 2003; it was claimed that the plaintiff was serving at Rajgarh and her permanent resident was at Rajgarh; no document regarding Dayal Network has been produced nor document pertaining to premises being on rent near public park has been produced; plaintiff's son had started business in the name of Arise Computer and Traders, she does not require premises reasonably and bona fidely; the defendants would suffer comparatively more hardship and their business would be ruined; the premises were neither required by the plaintiff for her residence nor her son has experience of Computer job; the prayer for mesne profit was also disputed.
(3.) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed nine issues; on behalf of the plaintiff - two witnesses PW -1 plaintiff herself and PW -2 Yudhisthar Gaur were examined; despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the defendants did not produce any evidence and the same was ultimately closed on 16.05.2007.;