SATYA NARAYAN Vs. RAM PRASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 40/80 (13/80) by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17. 12. 1979 passed by the learned Munsiff, Shahpura by which he decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Ram Prasan for eviction of the original defendant Jagdish Prasad from the shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity under Sec. 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1950' ).

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- One Ram Prasan (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff- respondent) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against Jagdish Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the original defendant) in the Court of Munsiff. Shahpura District Bhilwara on 6. 9. 1975 stating inter-alia that on 1. 4. 1974, the shop in question mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint was given by the plaintiff-respondent to the original defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 21/- for 11 months and the rent deed (Ex. 1) was also got executed. it was further stated in the plaint that since 1. 07. 1974 upto the date of filing of the suit, rent had become due and thus, the original defendant had committed default in making payment of rent for more then six months and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of default in making payment of rent under Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act of 1950. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he was the Government servant and he had retired and after his retirement, he intended to do business of Kirana in the shop in question and since his son Sushil Kumar had just passed B. Com. , therefore, they both would do business in the shop in question. Thus, the need of the plaintiff-respondent for the shop in question was reasonable and bonafide. A notice for vacating the shop in question was also given by the plaintiff respondent to the original defendant and, thereafter, the present suit was filed. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the original defendant by filing a written statement on 30. 10. 1975. In the written statement, it was averred by the original defendant that he was always ready ad willing to pay the rent, but it was plaintiff-respondent, who did not take the rent from him and, therefore, he had not committed any default in making payment of rent. So far as the need of the plaintiff-respondent for the shop in question is concerned, it was averred by the original defendant that there was no need and the suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent only to harass him. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsiff, Shahpura framed the following issues on 14. 4. 1977:- On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, five witnesses were produced in the trial court and original defendant Jagdish Prasad himself appeared as DW1 and no further evidence was led by him in the trial court. IT may be stated here that during the proceedings of the suit in the trial court the defence of the original defendant against eviction was struck down by the trail court vide order dated 19. 4. 1979 and appeal against that order was dismissed, as not pressed. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Munsiff, Shahpura District Bhilwara through his judgment and decree dated 17. 12. 1979 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the original defendant from the shop in question. The learned Munsiff decided the issues in the following manner:- (1) That the learned Munsiff while deciding the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent came to the conclusion that the need on the plaintiff-respondent for the shop in question was reasonable and bonafide one. (2) That so far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, that was decided before decreeing the suit on 7. 7. 1977 against the original defendant. (3) That so far as issue No. 3 is concerned, it was also decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent and against the original defendant. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 17. 12. 1979 passed by the learned Munsiff, Shahpura, the original defendant preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara and the same was transferred to the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara and that appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 40/80 (13/80 ). The learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara through his judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1983 dismissed the appeal filed by the original defendant and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17. 12. 1979 passed by the learned Munsiff, Shahpura. IT may be stated here that during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara, the original defendant Jagdish Prasad died on 27. 8. 1982 and his LRs were taken on record vide order dated 10. 12. 1982. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara, this second appeal has been filed by one of the LRs of original defendant Jagdish Prasad, namely, Satya Narayan, who is son of Jagdish Prasad and rest LRs are made Proforma respondents No. 2 to 6.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, this argument would not be helpful to the appellant-defendant because of the simple reason that the original rent was Rs. 12/- p. m. and thereafter, it was increased from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 21/- p. m. with effect from 1. 4. 1974 and this increase is very marginal one and for that increase, it cannot be inferred or presumed that the plaintiff-respondent had ulterior motive in his mind or his need was noting or mere wash. Had there been a substantial increase in the rent the position would have been different one. This increase in rent was made with effect from 1. 4. 1974 ad the suit was filed after more than one year on 6. 9. 1975 and, therefore, this increase should have been settled by that time and, it should have no adverse effect on the bonafide need on the plaintiff-respondent.