JAGDISH CHANDER SONI Vs. JABARMAL LODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1980, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif City, Jodhpur, whereby the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant appellant on the ground of sub-letting, nuisance, and also on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence by taking on rent another house in which he has started living. THE learned Munsif decided the issues of sub-letting and acquisition of vacant possession of a suitable residence in favour of the plaintiff. However, the issue of nuisance was decided against the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit. THE defendant went in appeal, which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who affirmed the finding on issue No. 1 relating to acquisition of vacant possession of a suitable residence by the tenant. However, the finding on issue relating to sub-letting was reversed. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, the decree of eviction was upheld. It may also be stated here that during the pendency of appeal, the defendant submitted an application for amendment of the written statement. THE defendant sought amendment that he had vacated the second set of premises taken on rent by him and has again started living in the disputed premises. THEre was one more amendment sought in the written statement, but it is not necessary to mention the same as it has not been pressed before me.

(3.) AS regards the first contention Shri Rewa Chand urged that the word "acquired" occurring in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act, should be construed in the sense of acquisition of ownership or title and not acquisition by taking premises on rent. He submitted that the word 'acquired" should take its meaning from its previous word "built". Under clause (i) a ground for eviction would arise in favour of the land-lord in case the tenant builds a suitable residence or acquires vacant possession of a suitable residence. He may acquire a suitable residence either by way of purchase, succession, gift, will or any other way whereby he may get title over the property. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Dwarkdas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (1), Sasadhar Chandra Day vs. Smt. Tara Sundari Dasi (2) and Kanuri Sri Sankara Rao vs. Kanuri Rajyalakshamma (3 ).