SOBHAGMAL JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Nagaur dated January 30, 1979 affirming the judgment and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Champa Lal filed a suit for eviction in the Court of Munsif, Deedwana, on October 3, 1979 for eviction of the suit premises at Ladnu on the ground that the suit house required repairs and that the suit premises were needed reasonably and bonafide for the plaintiff himself as he wanted to shift his residence there and also wanted to start his business. The suit was contested by the tenant Abdul Mazid, who denied the plaintiff's requirements for the suit house. After trial, the Munsif, Deedwana, decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction. On appeal the Civil Judge, Nagaur affirmed the decree for eviction. The learned Civil Judge disallowed the plea of the plaintiff that the suit house was required by the plaintiff for starting his business. It was, however, held that the suit premises were required by the plaintiff for his residence. Dissatisfied, Abdul Mazid filed the present appeal in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal both, Champa Lal and Abdul Mazid died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that after the death of Champa Lal-Plaintiff, the decree for eviction on the ground that the suit premises were required by Champa Lal for his own use cannot be maintained. It is well settled law that in case of bonafide need subsequent events must be taken into account, if they are relevant. In the present case the decree for eviction was passed on the ground that the suit premises were required by Champa Lal, for whose requirement eviction of the suit premises was claimed, suit premises are still required reasonably and bonafide by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The death of Champa Lal is a relevant circumstances which has to be taken into account even at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case I consider it proper that on account of the death of Champa Lal a new situation has arisen. The issue, whether the suit premises are required by the legal representatives of Champa Lal needs to be determined by the trial Court.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed. The judgments and process issued by the Munsif dated December 23, 1976 and of the Civil Judge, Nagaur dated January 31, 1979 are set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for deciding the question of bonafide requirement afresh. The trial Court shall allow the landlord-plaintiff an opportunity to amend their plaint and also allow the parties to file additional pleadings and lead evidence. Parties shall bear their own costs. As the matter has become old, the trial Court shall deal with the case expeditiously. Appeal allowed.;