PANNA CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1976, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in first appeal No. 176 of 1975 by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 21st March, 1975, was modified dismissing the plaintiff's claim for ejectment from the suit premises and decreeing the suit for use and occupation.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of a bungalow known as Kalyan Villa, situated at Subhash Marg, C -Scheme, Jaipur. The said premises was let out by the plaintiff appellant to the British India General Insurance Co., Ltd., for a period of one year at Rs. 350/ - per month with effect from 1st July, 1965. In addition to the rent, the defendant was also required to pay house tax amounting to Rs. 21.88P. The plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for eviction and recovery of damages for use and occupation against the United India Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. on the ground that British India General Insurance Co. Ltd., (here in after referred to as the Company) ceased to exist with effect from 31st December, 1973 and its business along with other General Insurance Companies had been taken over by the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (here in after referred to as the defendant). The plaintiff submitted that the tenancy of the company was determined by efflux of time after the expiry one year of tenancy on 30th June, 1966. The Company continued to be in possession even after the determination of the tenancy as it could not have been ejected without taking recourse under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as the Act) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant wrote a letter on 8th Jan., 1974, to the plaintiff that the Company has ceased to exist with effect from 31st December, 1973 and the new Company United India Fire.& General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been formed under the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 here in after referred to as the Nationalization Act). In the said letter it was also informed that the tenancy rights have devolved on the defendant and the defendant would be liable to and undertakes to pay the rent of the disputed premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant is not his tenant and the tenancy of the defendant was determined by one month's notice as per the terms of the lease -deed, as the defendant gives out that they were the tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for the use by his son and his family. The grounds about sub -letting etc. were also taken. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that under the Scheme of Merger framed under Section 16(1) of the Nationalization Act, the undertaking of the company has been transferred to and vested in the defendant with effect from 1st January, 1974. The defendant further contended that they are the legal successors and legal representatives of the Company for the purpose of the tenancy. In short, the defence of the defendant is that the defendant continues to be the tenant of the plaintiff in the suit premises. A plea was also raised by the defendant that in case the defendant is not admitted by the plaintiff to be his tenant, then the present suit is not maintainable as the proper remedy for the plaintiff would be to file a suit for possession based on title and after paying the requisite court -fees.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues, which have been translated into English, read as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is in reasonable and bonafide necessity of the premises in dispute for his own and the members of his family ? P. (2) Whether the defendant is not entitled to protection under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950? P. (3) Whether the defendant has sub -let the premises to Jamnalal Porwal resident of Udaipur, with effect from May and June 1974 ? If so, what is its effect on the suit ? P. (4) Whether the notice of the plaintiff dated 22 -3 -1974 determining the tenancy of the defendant is not sufficient ? P. (5) Whether the defendant has shifted its business from the premises in dispute to some other premises and on this account the plaintiff is entitled to get the premises vacated from the defendant ? P. (6) Whethet the court -fee paid is not sufficient ? D. (7) Whether the defendant is the successor and legal representative of British India General Insurance Company ? If so, what is its effect on the suit ? (8) Relief? ;