NATHURAM Vs. BHONREYLAL HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the Munsiff, Alwar and on appeal by the defendant the same are upheld by the District Judge, Alwar.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Firm Bhonreylai Hiralal, Kedalganj, Alwar and its partners respondent No. 2 to 6 filed the suit in the Court of Munsiff, Alwar on 10 -2 -62 alleging that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style: Firm Bhonrey lal Hiralal, which was also registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It was alleged that one Thakur Shivelal Singh, Muafidar of Thikana Burja sold a place of land measuring 370,10 'x'3' situated in the city of Alwar to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 22 -7 -1956 for a conit sideration of Rs. 3000/ -, and that the defendant was occupying a portion of this land measuring .27' x 33' as a tenant of the vendor Shivelal Singh for which the rent settled was Rs. 2/8/ - per month. It was also alleged that the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiffs upto 31 -12 -1960, and thereafter no rent had been paid. The plaintiffs' case was that that they wanted to construct shops on the land in question for carrying on their own business, and thus ejectment was claimed on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the landlords. It was also averred that the plaintiffs had terminated the defendant's tenancy by giving him a notice of ejecment dated 28 -8 -1961 to which the defendant had given an evasive reply dated 12 -9 -1961.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Munsiff by her judgment dated 21 -1 -1966 held that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 constitute a joint Hindu family and carry on business under the name and style Firm Bhonrey Lal Hiralal, Kedalganj, Aiwar. It was also found that Shivelal Singh was competent to sell the land in question and had validly sold the same to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed Ex 10, dated 26 -7 -1956 She also found that the defendant -appellant was a tenant in the suit premises and that the tenancy was not a permanent one. As regards the alleged reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiffs for the premises in question the finding of the learned Munsiff was also in favour of the plaintiffs. She held that the plaintiffs had lawfully terminated the defendant's tenancy by a valid notice of ejectment. She found that the defendant had failed to prove that the land in question was a muafi. In the result she decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction.