C.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.
(2.) ONE Awani Kumar Mukerjee owned two shops Nos. 56 and 57 situated on the station road, Jaipur. Behind these shops there is a latrine and bath room. It is alleged by the plaintiff Manakchand that he purchased the aforesaid property from Awani Kumar Mukherjee on 26 -7 -62 for a sum of Rs. 10,500/ - by a registered sale -deed. Defendant Madanlal was at that time occupying the premises in question as a tenant of Awani Kumar Mukerjee at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -, in pursuance of a rent note alleged to have been executed by the defendant's father dated 1st of June, 1953. It is averred in para No. 3 of the plaint that this rent note was for one year and on the expiry of this period of one year the defendant's father became a statutory tenant. It is further alleged that after the death of defendant's father Devi Sahai, the defendant continued to occupy the premises in question in the capacity of a tenant. The plaintiff's case is that he requires the shops for his bona fide and personal necessity as he himself was residing in a rented house and was paying rent at Rs. 75 per mensem and consequently he gave a notice to the defendant dated 8 -8 -62 terminating his tenancy with effect from midnight of 31st August, 1962, or such other date on which the defendant thought that the tenancy expired and required him to vacate the premises thereafter for the occupation of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant had paid rent upto 31st August, 1962, but had not paid rent thereafter. With these allegations the suit was brought on 28th November, 1962, in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The defendant in his written statement admitted that he had received a notice from Awani Kumar Mukerjee stating that the premises in question had been sold by a registered sale deed by him to the plaintiff. It was, however, pleaded that there was an agreement between the defendant's father Devi Sahai and Awani Kumar Mukerjee that the defendant's family would reside in the premises in question and he would get necessary additions and alterations done therein to suit his convenience and further that Awani Kumar Mukerjee had also agreed that he would offer the shops in question for sale first to the defendant's father in case he wanted to sell them. It was further alleged that the defendant's father had carried out improvements and got fitted electricity and water connection in the premises in question. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent, but since the defendant expressed his inability to pay enhanced rent for the premises, the present suit for ejectment has been filed. It was also stated by the defendant that after the death of his father he had executed a fresh rent note in favour of Awani Kumar according to which it was agreed that he would get one month's notice before he would be required to vacate the premises and consequently the notice dated 8 -8 -62 served by the plaintiff was not valid, as it did not give one month's tune for, vacating the premises. As regards payment of rent the plea of the defendant was that he had always been paying rent month to month and had sent the rent for the months of September, October, November and December, 1962, by money orders, but the same had been refused and that he was still prepared to pay the rent, but the plaintiff was not in a mood to accept the same. In the additional pleas the defendant further pleaded that Awani Kumar had no authority to sell the premises in question to the plaintiff as certain additions and alterations had been done by the defendant's father. He also expressed his willingness to execute a fresh rent -note in favour of the plaintiff. On these pleadings the trial court framed the following issues - - ¼1 1/2 D;k izfroknh ds firk ds nsgkUr gksus ij tnhn fdjk;kukek vouh dqekj eqdthZ ds gd esa rgjhj dj fn;k vkSj perpetual lease vouh dqekj us eqík% ds gd esa eatwj dj fy;k vkSj bef[kyk; ds fy;s 1 ekg ds uksfVl dh 'krZ ls ikbZ Fkh\ Mh - ¼2 1/2 D;k vouh dqekj eqdthZ dh btktr ls eqnk% fctyh o ikuh dk uy vius lQh ls 498&25 esa yxk;k o nhxj rkekjkr ds 707&55 dk [kpkZ fd;k o 261&00 fVu'ksM esa [kpZ fd;s ;kuh tqeyk [kpkZ 1466&80 [kpZ fd;s\ ;fn ,slk gS rks D;k eqík% mä jde eqíbZ ls ik ldrk gS\ Mh - ¼3 1/2 D;k eqíbZ dks tehu o nqdkukr xSj c['k viuh bona fide reasonable necessity ds fy;s [kkyh djkuk t:jh gS\ ih - ¼4 1/2 D;k uksfVl o otqgkr eqdthZ en ua - 5 tckc nkok dkuwuh rkSj ij fMQsfDVo gS\ ¼5 1/2 nknLlh D;k gksxh\   It appears that the defendant subsequently made an application on 5 -2 -64 for framing additional issues on which the following two issues were framed: - - ¼4, 1/2 D;k vouh dqekj eqdthZ dks nqdku cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj oknh dk dCtk fMQsDVho gS\ ¼4&ch 1/2 D;k ;g plea izfroknh legally ys ldrs gSa\
(3.) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Additional Munsif No. 1 Jaipur City, to whom the case had been transferred for trial, decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif the defendant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, who transferred the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 19 -9 -67. Consequently the defendant has come in second appeal to this court.;