DHAN RAJ Vs. L.RS. OF NEMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction as filed by the plaintiff -appellant against the defendant -respondent (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barmer by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998, inter alia, with the findings on reasonable and bona fide requirement and comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff -appellant. The decree so passed by the Trial Court was, however, reversed by the Additional District Judge, Barmer while allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant -tenant on 30.04.1999 and while reversing the findings on the relevant issues.

(2.) THIS second appeal preferred by the plaintiff -appellant against the judgment and decree so passed by the Appellate Court came to be admitted by this Court on 22.07.1999 while formulating the following substantial question of law:

(3.) THE defendant, while denying the plaint averments, submitted that the shop was taken initially on a rent of Rs. 50/ -per month but then, the rent was forcibly enhanced to Rs. 75/per month. The defendant also submitted that the said suit No. 12/1989 was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his father wherein a collusive decree was obtained on the first date of hearing. The defendant denied the allegations of his default and of the plaintiff's requirement. The defendant also denied the allegation of non -user of the premises.