LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SUBHASH SIDHWANI Vs. MADHULIKA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31. 7. 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 273/97 which the trial court decreed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff against the defendant-tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and rejected the plea of change of user of the premises as alleged by the plaintiff against the defendant. The trial Court also held that the defendant-tenant committed default in payment of rent as the rent from 4. 8. 1996 to 9. y. 1997 were not paid to the plaintiff by the defendant but the trial Court granted benefit of first default to the tenant and, after declaring the tenant as first defaulter, refused to pass decree on the ground of default.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Madhulika Agrawal filed suit for eviction for the House No. 35 situated at Ambawgarh, Udaipur alleging that the suit premises was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on 4. 4. 1989 having rent of Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiff alleged that from August, 196 till June, 1997, no rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant is defaulter as he has not paid rent for more than six months and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree for eviction on the ground of default as provided under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" of 1950 ).

(3.) THE trial Court framed the issues relating to the personal bonafide need of the plaintiff, comparative hardship and partial eviction and also framed the issue with respect to the allegation of change of user of the premises by the defendant and default in payment of rent and, on the basis of the counter claim, issue with respect to the standard rent was also framed.