Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) SINCE the facts are very peculiar, therefore, this appeal itself is heard and decided by this order.
(2.) THE appellants/defendants have challenged the judgments and decrees dated 15.02.2005 and 29.11.2005 passed by the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court respectively. The appeal was admitted on 22.05.2006 on finding following substantial questions of law being involved in this appeal: (1) Whether the two Courts below ignored the material evidence from the statement of the plaintiff where the plaintiff admitted that earlier also, he filed the suit for eviction of the tenant (another) on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and got the possession of the house but did not occupy the house? (2) Whether the two Courts below committed error of law in drawing inference that the plaintiff by evidence proved his bonafides for the alleged need despite the fact that the plaintiff admitted that he is settled at Mumbai along with his family and projected his need only for the purpose that his children has grown up and for their marriages, he needs house in dispute? (3) Whether the Court below committed error of law in taking the suit of the plaintiff under Section 13(1)(k) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 because of the reason that no material facts were pleaded by the plaintiff constituting the cause of action for decree of eviction on this point?
(3.) AFTER admitting the appeal, the execution of decree under challenge was stayed by this Court.;