, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal of the defendant tenant pending for last 18 years in this Court was admitted on the following substantial question of law framed by this Court on 6. 9. 1991: Can the dead-man's personal necessity be a ground for ejectment?
(2.) THE plaintiff Smt. Premlata Bakshi W/o Sh. Mangal Singh Bakshi, who expired before filing of the second appeal by the defendant filed the eviction suit against the defendant appellant in the year 1981 on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of her husband and son who was engaged as Inspector in the National Insurance Company in respect of residential house situated at 24, Chitragupt Marg, Udaipur, which was let out under an oral agreement to the defenadnt on 15. 3. 1969 for a sum of Rs. 80/- per month as rent. THE bonafide need of the landlord was claimed on the ground that her son is getting married on 1. 7. 1979 and after retirement of her husband, he intends to work as property valuer and consultant Engineer, therefore, the suit property i. e. the said residential house would be required for residential and business need of the family members. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court granted partial eviction decree on 9. 1. 1985 directing eviction of the defendant from the room including latrine bathroom situated at the ground floor. The plaintiff filed first appeal against the said partial eviction decree before the first appellate Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Udaipur which came to be allowed on 10. 7. 1991 and instead of partial eviction, the appellate Court granted eviction decree of the entire premises in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant does not appear to have filed any cross-appeal against the partial eviction decree by the learned trial Court. The present second appeal was filed by the defendant tenant in this Court on 5. 9. 1991 and as already stated above was admitted on a limited substantial question of law as quoted above on 6. 9. 1991 and interim order against dispossession was also granted in favour of the defendant on 6. 9. 1991 which has continued throughout. The defendant appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. in this Court on 14. 3. 2000 with the averment that the plaintiff had sold the said suit property on 15. 9. 1999 to one Shanti Lal S/o Sh. Nemi Chand Chittora of which a registered notice was sent to the defendant Naresh Chand by the plaintiff on 26. 1. 2000 as well as by the purchaser through his advocate on 2. 2. 2000. Copies of these documents are also placed on record along with said application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. Mr. R. K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant defendant urged that since the property in question has already been sold, therefore, the defendant cannot be now evicted from the suit premises as the personal need of erstwhile owner plaintiff no more exists. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: 1) Preetam Singh vs. Narendra Kumar and ors.- 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 293. 2) Sheikh Jehangir vs. Smt. S. Kaushilyabai and ors.- 1987 (Supp.) SCC 630. 3) Rakesh Gupta vs. Ahmed Farooq 1992 (2) RLW 398. Mr. Sajjan Singh and Mr. B. K. Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff on the other hand opposed these submissions and relied upon following judgments in support of his submissions: 1) Dharam Chand vs. Karam Chand-2001 (3) RLR 713 = RLW 2002 (1) Raj. 657 2) Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul and ors.- 1997 (2) Apex Court Journal 10 (S. C. ). 3) Ram Saran Sharma vs. Smt. Kamla Acharya 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 565 = RLW 2001 (4) Raj. 198.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsels at length and given my thoughtful conside-ration to the rival submissions and judgments cited at the Bar and record of the case. At the outset, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. bringing on record the fact that the suit property in question was sold by the plaintiff on 15. 9. 1999 during the pendency of this second appeal before this Court deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed and the documents placed on record therewith are liable to be considered by this Court. Law about entertaining second appeal on substantial question of law under Section 100 C. P. C. is now well settled and by catena of judgments, it is well settled that the findings of fact about the personal bonafide necessity of the landlord do not give rise to any substantial question of law unless the said findings are perverse and based on no relevant evidence at all. It is also equally well settled that bonafide need of the landlord as on the date of filing of the suit for eviction is to be considered by the Court and it is also equally well settled that question of title is irrelevant in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act. ;