Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 4-5-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4 Jaipur City, Jaipur allowing the regular first appeal filed by the respondent-defendanttenant (hereinafter 'tenant') under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 3-12-2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur and dismissing the appellant-plaintiff-landlord's (hereinafter 'landlord') suit.
(2.) The second appeal was admitted on 18-10-2006 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether "nuisance" as defined under Section 13(1) (d) of the Rajasthan premises (control of Rent and Eviction) Act should be continuous nuisance to incur the liability of eviction? 2. Whether the findings of the courts below with regard to the reasonable and bona-fide necessity are perverse? Heard Mr. MM Ranjan for the landlord and Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the tenant.
(3.) Mr. M.M. Ranjan in the course of arguments submitted that another substantial question of law also arises in this second appeal which is as to whether the findings of the First Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court on the issue of material alteration as defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') are perverse.;