Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -defendant has laid this appeal imploring annulment of judgment and decree dated 19th of February, 2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), affirming the judgment and decree dated 20th of April, 2011, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sirohi (for short, 'learned trial Court').
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that, respondent -plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against appellant -defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the premises owned by him was let out to respondent in February, 1998 at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/ - and asserted that the tenancy was as per English calendar month. For seeking eviction of the appellant, ground of default in payment of rent is set out in the plaint besides the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. In order to prove reasonable and bona fide necessity, respondent has pleaded that he is contemplating to enter into matrimony, and therefore, for himself and his wife he is in dire need of the disputed premises. It is further averred, in the plaint, that respondent is having no other accommodation to provide shelter to his prospective wife and in want of requisite accommodation his matrimonial prospects are substantially diminishing. Respondent has also set out a case that if the appellant is asked to vacate the premises, it will not cause any hardship to her, and, contrary to it, would cause undue hardship to him. Besides these two grounds, the respondent has also taken shelter of yet another ground for eviction, viz., material alteration in the premises by appellant. While taking a dig at the stand of the appellant in disowning the ownership of respondent, it is also urged, in the plaint, that appellant is liable to be evicted from the premises on the ground of denial of title. Requisite facts, about default in payment of rent, were incorporated in the plaint with material particulars. Appellant -defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. In the return, appellant, while acknowledging the ownership of respondent at the earlier point of time stated that in the month of January 1998, when respondent was in dire need of money, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from him and, in lieu thereof, mortgaged the disputed premises in the name of appellant. Execution of mortgage deed by respondent in favour of appellant on 7th of January, 1998 is also pleaded specifically in the written statement. As per the version of the appellant, respondent agreed to pay the aforesaid amount on or before 1st of January, 2001 and in the event of his failure to carry out his obligation the mortgage would automatically stand foreclosed so as to confer title of the premises on appellant facilitating full use and occupation of the same by her. It is further elaborated, in the written statement by the appellant, that, as per the stipulated terms and conditions of mortgage -deed, when respondent failed to pay the requisite amount, she herself become owner due to foreclosure of the mortgage and, as such, respondent is not her landlord. In that background, the appellant has asserted that there was no obligation on her part to pay rent of the disputed premises to the respondent. Emphasizing the relationship of mortgagee and mortgagor between the rival parties, appellant specifically pleaded in the return that as a consequence of foreclosure of the mortgage, provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'Act of 1950') are not applicable. As regards reasonable and bona fide necessity of the respondent, the facts averred in the plaint were denied in toto with a specific plea that presently respondent is 48 years old and, as such, there is no question of reasonable and bona fide necessity, nor there is any question of comparative hardship if the disputed premises is not vacated by the appellant. The appellant, while making scathing attack on the conduct of respondent, has pleaded, in the written statement, that he has concealed material facts and laid this suit on wholly false and concocted facts. While adverting to the alleged material alterations carried out in the premises, the appellant has asserted in the written statement that no material alteration was done in the premises and some of the repairing works including plastering was carried out as per wishes of the respondent. As regards notice served by the respondent, appellant has acknowledged receipt of the same but asserted that the suit is founded on absolutely false and baseless grounds. Appellant has also claimed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/ - from the respondent.
(3.) RELYING on the pleadings of rival parties, the learned trial Court settled eleven issues for determination.;