BABULAL Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant tenant against the judgment and decree of learned lower Appellate Court whereby, by reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court the plaintiffs suit for eviction from the suit premises has been decreed. Obviously the learned trial court had dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE suit was filed way back on 10.12.1987 against three defendants being Bhanwarlal, Balchand and Babulal. However pending litigation Bhanwarlal expired and his legal representatives have been taken on record. In the original plaint the case of the plaintiff was that the suit premises is on rent with the defendants No. 1 and 2. It was also alleged that the ground of eviction as originally pleaded was that the defendant No. 1 has constructed his house In the name of his wife while the defendant No.2 has constructed his house at New Pali Road and thus neither of the defendants No. 1 and 2 nor any of their family members live in the suit premises. In the suit eviction was claimed on the grounds detailed in para 8 of the plaint being (i) default In payment of rent and (ii) that the premises have been sublet by the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the defendant No.2 (appellant or in the alternative the defendants No. 1 and 2 have parted with possession in favour of the defendant No.3 without consent of the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is thereafter that on 21.7.1990 plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to add two more sub -paras In para 8; first being acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation by the tenant (defendants No. 1 and 2) and second being that on account of defendants No. 1 and 2 having shifted to those accommodation, the suit premises is not being used by the tenant, for a period of six months since before filing of the suit for the purposes for which it was let. This amendment was allowed, amended plaint was submitted on 9.12.1990.