K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment based on the grounds of default as well as personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff in respect of a shop.
(2.) IN view of the order, I am going to pass I need not state the facts of the case at length. Suffice it to say that in the written statement, the defendant while denying the plaintiff's ground of ejectment also denied his title and claimed title in himself. Six issues were framed they related to the questions (i) whether the defendant was the plaintiff's tenant; (ii) what is the rent payable; (iii) whether the plaintiff required the shop reasonably and bonafide for his personal use; (iv) whether the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendant; (v) whether the defendant has been in possession of the suit shop for the last 80 years as owners; and (vi) relief. After taking the evidence of the parties, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that it was proved that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff, that the amount of rent was Rs. 130/- p.a., that the plaintiff had reasonable and bonafide necessity of the shop, that plaintiff was entitled to get the shop vacated and that in view of the decision on issue No. 1, issue No. 5 should be decided against the defendant. Aggrieved of this, the defendant went up in appeal and before the learned appellate Court the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants urged that in this case the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiffs can get a decree in their favour only if they prove their title, that the defendant is the tenant and that the tenancy has validly been terminated. So far as the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff was concerned, it was not disputed before the learned District Judge and, the learned District Judge further found that it was also proved that the defendant had made defaults in making payment. The learned District Judge held that in this suit, the plaintiffs are not required to establish their title, that it was proved that the defendant was the plaintiffs' tenant and that the tenancy had validly been terminated. He, accordingly, dismissed the defendant's appeal by his judgment and decree dated 2.4.1974. Hence this second appeal.
(3.) PENDING this appeal, an application has been made under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 on 29.1.1975 and a statement of the arrears of rent etc. was also submitted on 13.2.1976. However, that application has not yet been disposed of.;