GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by the defendant tenant, against the different judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below in two different suits, instituted by two different landlords, and decreeing both the suits for eviction, and also determining standard rent in favour of both the landlords.
(2.) IN my view, the totality of circumstances of both the cases is such, that I think it appropriate to decide both the appeals by this common judgment. Appeal No. 50 arises out of the suit instituted by Sri Chand, while Appeal o. 49 arises out of the suit instituted by Smt. Madan Kanwar. The two plaintiffs are husband and wife respectively. The facts of the case are, that the suit premises earlier belonged to one owner being Milap chand, of whom the defendant appellant was a tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/ -. This properly was sold by Milap Chand to the two plaintiffs, by executing two different sale deeds; one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, on 12. 8. 1961. Thus, each respective purchaser plaintiff became owner of respective portion of the suit premises, while the appellant was tenant in the entire premises, under one tenancy. The husband filed the suit for eviction, on the ground of default, and reasonable and bonafide necessity, alleging inter alia, that he lives in Singhpol, which is located at a height, and he feels difficulty in coming and going from there. It is also alleged, that the plaintiff is carrying on business as a tenant, in the shop of late Mohan Lal Vyas, which tenanted shop is insufficient for his business, apart from the fact that the landlord is pressing for eviction, while in the suit shop (shop belonging to husband), there is space measuring 18 ft. and the plaintiff would use remaining part of the shop for residence, for himself and his family, and use the other part of the shop including the shop situated in the north, which has been purchased by his wife, by making necessary additions and alterations for carrying on his business. The plaintiff alleged to be above 60 years of age, and claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month (half of the rent of the total premises) and prayed for determining this, amount as standard rent also. The other suit was filed by the wife, also alleging identical facts, including requirement of the suit premises for herself and for her husband, for carrying on business, and making identical averments for inconvenient location of the residence, and about using the premises after making necessary additions and alterations. Thus, since the two plaintiffs want to use the premises collectively, by making necessary additions and alterations, for residence and shop, and the premises being one, under one tenancy, having been purchased by the husband and wife, in different portions, under different sale deeds, I think it appropriate to decide these appeals by this common judgment.
(3.) THE defendant contested both the suits, alleging that the landlord was not entitled to bifurcate on split the tenancy, by selling the premises in portions to two different persons, and unless the original landlord gives him notice, or the plaintiff proves the valid sale deed, the plaintiff does not become landlord. It was also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to bifurcate the rent, nor was the seller so entitled to fix the rent. It was also contended that the seller had asked the defendant to increase the rent, and that he wants to sale the shop also contended that the seller had asked the defendant to increase the rent, and that he wants to sale the shop also, because he wants to become an `ascetic', whereupon the defendant offered to purchase the premises on appropriate market price, and in the alternative also offered to increase the rent, but then the landlord did not respond, and had learnt, that he became `ascetic'. It was also alleged that rent had been paid by the defendant upto July, 1996, and thereafter nobody came to demand rent. However, notice was received from the plaintiff on 4. 4. 1997, which was replied. THE allegations of default and bonafide necessity were denied. It was denied that the husband is carrying on business in the rented shop, and rather the husband is carrying on business comfortably in the existing premises, and the suit shop is not at all suitable for the proposed business. It was also alleged, that the house at Singhpol is a well constructed house, the suit premises is in the market, which cannot be used for residential purposes. THEn, the pleadings of of comparative hardship etc. were taken. Both the learned courts below decreed the plaintiffs' suits for eviction, and determined standard rent at Rs. 275/-, in each of the suit. On the question of default it was held, by the learned lower appellate Court, that the erstwhile landlord had no authority to bifurcate the rent without consent of the tenant, and since the defendant contested the rate of rent, the rent can be determined only by the Court, and therefore, he cannot be said to be defaulter. It was also found by the learned lower Appellate court, that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Nalakath Sainuddin vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman, reported in 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 623 (SC), there is a statutory bifurcation of tenancy, and suit could be filed by each of the plaintiff, in respect of the portions of premises, purchased, and the bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs', as pleaded, was also upheld. Assailing the impugned judgments, it was contended, that in a suit for eviction, the erstwhile landlord, so also the purchaser of the other portion of the premises, was also necessary party, and in absence thereof the rent could not be determined, as in determination of rent for any portion of the premises would obviously adversely affect the rent for the other portion, and therefore, it could not be done in absence of other purchasers. It was contended, that thus the suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended, that either of the suits for eviction also could not be decreed, as it was not open to the original landlord to split up, or effect bifurcation of the tenancy, merely by executing different sale deeds in favour of different persons, and even if it was done, it was not open to any of the plaintiff to file the suit for eviction. Reliance in this regard was placed on judgment of this Court, in Ghisa Ram vs. Raja Ram Kumar, reported in 1975 WLN (UC) 199. Then, assailing the finding on the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity, it was contended that the distance between the shop where the husband is carrying on business and the residential house is only five minutes walk, and there is nothing on record to show, that the husband is under threat of eviction from the shop occupied by him. In that view of the matter, the alleged requirement only rests in the realm of desire, and on that ground the decree for eviction could not be passed. Relying upon the judgment of this Court, in Uda Ram vs. Pyare Lal, reported in 2003 (3) RLR 190 = RLW 2003 (4) Raj. 2342, it was contended that before decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity, the landlord must prove the three elements, which must coexist, to sustain the landlord's suit for possession of the premises, and the three elements are as under: 1. The landlord require the premises for his own use as owner; 2. His requirement is reasonable and bonafide for himself or for family; 3. Non-availability of an accommodation in the city or town for that purpose. ;