PANNA CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd March, 1979, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 89/1974 (59/1971).
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of Plot No. F -170, situated in Ashok Nagar Gautam Marg, Jaipur. On this plot, there is a building having ten rooms, six on the ground floor and four on the first floor. There is also a garage attached to the building. This building was leased out to Smt. Radha Kumari for the purpose of running a school on on 15th August, 1960, on a monthly rent of Rs. 240/ -. A suit was filed against Smt. Radha Kumari for eviction in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 15th February, 1968. The defendant contested the suit and contended that with effect from 1st April, 1965, she was no more a tenant and the tenant is respondent No. 4, Rastriya Vidya Niketan Sikshan Samiti Jaipur. The suit was withdrawn with the permission of the Court to file another suit against respondent No. 4. As such, the present suit has been filed against Smt. Radha Kumari and others, including Rastriya Vidya Niketan Sikshan Samiti, Jaipur. In the suit, eviction has been sought on the ground of personal necessity, subletting and for the purpose of establishing a school by Nand Kishore, son of the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) (a) Whether the defendants sub -let the garage ? (b) Whether the plaintiff has given his consent to defendants for subletting ? (2) Whether the defendants have begun to use the bungalow for purpose other than running the school and what is its effect ? (3) Whether the plaintiff requires the premises in question for bona fide and reasonably for himself and his family for the purposes mentioned in Para 6 of the plaint ? (4) (a) Whether the defendant No. 2 did not receive the notice ? (b) Whether the delivery of notice addressed to defendant No. 4 to the Principal of the school is not to be taken a notice to defendant No. 4 ? (5) Whether the defendant No. 4 spent Rs. 750/ - in white -washing and/colouring of the bungalow and Rs. 300/ - every year, the same way and if so, is the defendant No. 4 is entitled to deduct the amount from rent ? (6) Relief? (7) Whether the plaintiff served a valid notice upon the Adhyaksha of the defendant No. 7. If so, to what effect ? (8) Whether the premises in dispute were let out to the defendant No. 4 on the condition that these will no be got vacated at any time ? If so, to what effect ? (9) Whether in view of the allegations made in the re -application of the plaintiff dated 2 -12 -1975, he will suffer greater hardship if decree of eviction of the defendant is not granted to him ?
(3.) THE learned trial Court decided issues No. 1(b), 4(a) (b), 5,7 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff appellant and issues No. 1(a), 2 and 9 in favour of the defendant -respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd March, 1979, this appeal has been preferred.;