PRAKASH GUPTA,J. - (1.) Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') whereby the learned first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal can be briefly summarized as thus: The respondent No.1 plaintiff Janki Devi (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed property against the defendant No.1 appellant Nand Kishore (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No.1'), on 15.01.1975. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that the defendant No.1, who had taken the said property on rent from the plaintiff on 04.12.1971 at a monthly rent of Rupees 300, had defaulted in the payment of rent right from the inception and that the plaintiff required the said property to fulfill her bona fide and reasonable needs. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had sub-let the said property without the prior permission of the plaintiff and had also done material alterations to the suit property without seeking the permission of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 filed his written-statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint.
(3.) The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as eight issues. While adjudicating the case finally, the learned trial court decided issues No.1, 3, 7A and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002 passed by the learned trial court, defendant No.1 preferred a first appeal under section 96 of the civil Procedure Code, 1908. The said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003. Hence, this second appeal.;