SOBHAGMAL JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated the 31st July, 1976 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment.
(2.) THE original plaintiff Manoharlal filed a suit for ejectment on the ground that defendant was in default in payment of rent and that the premises were required by the plaintiff bonafide and reasonably. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the tenant was a defaulter in payment of rent and that the landlord Manoharlal also required the premises reasonably and bonafide. On appeal preferred by the tenant, the Civil Judge affirmed the decree of ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The question whether the landlord required the premises bonafide and reasonably was, however, not decided. A second appeal was filed under Section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, as amended by Ordinance of 1975 and the subsequent payment of rent so determined, the decree for eviction could not be maintained on the ground of default and remitted the appeal to the appellate Court for deciding on merits the question of reasonably and bonafide requirement of the landlord. After remand, the Civil Judge, Nagaur by the judgment and decree dated the 31.7.1976 has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the landlord Manoharlal expired during the pendency of the appeal on December 22, 1973 and thereafter the plaintiffs could not continue the suit. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of Manoharlal have filed the present appeal in this Court. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that the shop was required reasonably and bonafide for Manoharlal who wanted to start cloth business in the suit shop. Manoharlal died during the pendency of the appeal on December 22, 1973. An application for substitution as legal representatives was filed but in the said application no allegations have been made that any of the legal representatives was carrying on the business with Manoharlal. No allegations have also been made to the effect that any of the legal representatives requires the present shop for his bonafide needs. The plaintiffs took no steps to amend the plaint. Not even an application was filed to the effect that the shop in question is required bonafide or reasonably by the family or any member thereof. There is no evidence on record to show that after the death of Manoharlal, the shop is still needed reasonably or bonafide for the requirements of the legal representatives of Manoharlal. In these circumstances the decree for eviction based on reasonable and bonafide need cannot be sustained. I do not find any ground to interfere in second appeal with the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur.
(3.) THE result is, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;