OM PRAKASH Vs. KALYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two civil second appeals have been filed by the defendants/their legal representatives under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgement and decree dated 27.7.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Bharatpur who thereby confirmed the judgement and decree dated 16.3.1981 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur. Since they arise out of the same suit and seek to challenge the same judgement, therefore, were clubbed together, heard together and are being decided together by this judgement.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, facts of the case need be noticed in brief. Plaintiff-respondents Kalyan Prashad and Mahesh Chand filed a suit for eviction of defendant-appellants from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide reasonable necessity and for recovery of the arrears of rent of three months. The shop in question was let out to the defendant-tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 45/- by predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs-respondents viz its original landlord/owner Shri Poonam Chand. Plaintiff-respondents purchased the shop vide sale deed dated 27.12.1968 from him. Plaintiff-respondents asserted that greater hardship would be caused to them in case their plea was not upheld. Defendants contested the suit and denied that the suit premises was required for bona fide reasonable personal necessity of the plaintiffs. Defendants raised an additional objection in the written statement that though the plaintiffs may have purchased the shop but there was one 'bukhari' which opens in this shop, but its main body is outside the boundary of the shop, which having not been purchased by the plaintiff still continues in the ownership of the previous owner/landlord. Both shop and 'bukhari' were let out to the defendants at the time of commencement of tenancy, whereas the plaintiffs have merely purchased the shop vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.1968. They are therefore not entitled to maintain the suit for eviction of the defendants from the composite property belonging to two different owners.

(3.) It may be pertinent to notice that prior to filing of the suit for eviction and arrears of rent, defendants themselves filed a suit for fixation of the standard rent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control for Eviction) Act, 1950 on 11.2.1969. During pendency of the said suit, plaintiffs filed another suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent determined under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1950. It was asserted therein that defendants have not deposited provisional rent for the month of May, 1969 by 15.6.1990 and in the same manner, provisional rent of next month was not deposited by 15th July. There was thus a default in payment of the rent. This suit was also contested by the defendants, who in their written statement denied having committed any default in making payment of provisional rent. The suit no.253/71 was consolidated with suit no.45/69 by order of the Court dated 2.3.79 and were tried together with a common suit.