RAM NARAYAN Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1997, passed by first appellate Court whereby the first appellate Court by its impugned judgment affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 15.2.1991, passed by the trial Court against tenant- defendant-appellants holding that tenant-defendant-appellant Ram Narayan (who expired after decision of first appellate Court and now being represented by his legal representatives), was inducted as a tenant by mortgagees of landlord-plaintiff/respondents and after redemption of mortgage on 15.9.1980, was liable to be evicted from the disputed premises. It is revealed from perusal of impugned judgment of first appellate Court that it has set aside the findings recorded by the trial Court on issues No. 2 and 4. Issue No. 2 pertains by whom Ram Narayan was inducted as a tenant over the disputed premises and issue No. 4 relates reasonable and bonafide necessity of the premises in dispute of the landlord-plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE learned trial Court decreed the suit of eviction of the landlord- plaintiff-respondents on the finding recorded on issue No. 4 holding that they have succeeded to establish their reasonable and bonafide necessity for the premises within the meaning of clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment and decree dad 15.2.1991, passed by learned trial Court, the tenant-defendant, Ram Narayan filed an appeal before the first appellate Court under Section 96 C.P.C., whereas the landlord- plaintiff-respondent filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. against the finding recorded by trial Court on issue No. 2.