Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellants -tenants are aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dt. 30.03.1994 and 02.06.2001. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and tenant's appeal was dismissed by Appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by Banshilal and Motilal S/o of Kalu Ram for eviction of their tenants. In the suit Motilal S/o Kalu Ram was impleaded as party plaintiff and Balmukand S/o Motilal was also impleaded as party plaintiff No. 3. The two Courts below concurrently recorded finding of facts in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for eviction of the tenants -appellants.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the appellants, the suit has been filed by impleading Balmukund as party whereas he was not landlord and, therefore, the suit itself should have been dismissed because of mis -joinder of party as well as on the ground that suit for eviction of tenants cannot be maintained for the need of nephew of the landlord. It is also submitted that the suit can be filed for eviction by the landlord on the ground of his personal bona fide necessity as well as for the necessity of his family and nephew is not a member of family. It is submitted that family has not been defined in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1950) and in the same facts and circumstances of this case, this Court in the case of Radhavallabh v. Damodardas reported in, RLW 1964 587 interpreted the word 'family' and in view of the said interpretation, the two Courts below have committed error of law by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction of the appellants on the alleged ground of necessity of Balmukand.;