SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal was preferred in 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur was upheld. By way of the aforementioned judgments, the Civil Suit No. 1316/1993 (685/80) was decreed in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for rent and eviction.
(2.) Brief facts which need to be addressed are that on 23.07.1976 plaintiff-respondent No. 1 preferred a suit against the appellants for claiming rent and for seeking eviction from the rented premises pointing out that the appellants-defendants had taken on rent one shop situated at Chowk Vishveshwarji from the father of the plaintiff on 1.5.1963 @ Rs. 90/- per month. Apart from the same, they were required to pay the house tax. A Rent Note had been executed in favour of defendants-appellants on 30.04.1963. A release deed was executed by the father of the plaintiff on 19.04.1971 in favour of plaintiff and information thereto was given to the defendant Bhonri Lal Bhagat who expired during the pendency of the suit on 04.02.1988. The said notice was served upon him through registered post intimating that henceforth the defendant would treat the plaintiff as the owner of the shop and continue to pay rent to him. It is stated that upto 30.04.1975, the plaintiff received the rent from the said defendant Bhonri Lal Bhagat (deceased). But thereafter, defendants did not pay the rent or the house tax inspite of demand and a suit was, therefore, filed claiming said rent arrears and for evicting the same. It was also submitted that the plaintiff was engaged in partnership business with other persons and now wanted to start his own business and required it for personal necessity by opening a showroom of jewellery and to manufacture the same. Thereby the plaintiff expressed its bona fide necessity for getting the shop vacated. It was further stated in the plaint that the said Bhonri Lal Bhagat expired on 04.02.1988 and the defendants were not conducting any business by sitting in the shop since 25.07.1985 and the shop was being kept closed. It is further submitted that defendants Nos. 1/1 to 1/7 had never did business with Bhonri Lal Bhagat during his lifetime. It was also pointed out that Bhonri Lal Bhagat originally taken shop on rent for the purpose of carrying on business of brokerage. However, the nature of business had been changed and now the business of selling vegetable oil and ghee from the premises is going on. Accordingly, it is stated that the condition of shop had depleted. The plaintiff also submitted that if comparative hardship is examined then too, it would be seen that the plaintiff had more requirements than the defendants who had been given a notice on 27.01.1979 and same was confirmed on 31.07.1979 to the said effect.
(3.) Defendant-appellant No. 1 namely late Shri Bhonri Lal Bhagat filed a written statement denying the contents of the execution of rent agreement dated 30.04.1963 and the condition of payment of house tax. He denied any default having been committed by him. On the other hand, it was stated that the plaintiff had refused to accept the rent from 1.5.1975 and was pressurizing for increasing the rent and, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for fixation of standard rent on 21.09.1976 and stated that whatever rent would be fixed by the Court would be acceptable to him. It was further stated by the defendant in his written statement that the nature of business was not mentioned in the rent note and the shop had been taken out on rent for business purpose and, therefore, it was immaterial whether the business of brokerage or any other business was being run. It was stated that the plaintiff had no necessity for the present suit shop and the only requirement of the plaintiff was to increase the rent and had filed the suit for standard rent.;