DENZIL NAJRATH Vs. BALWANT SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellantdefendant (Tenant)- Denzil Najrath, Principal of Sacred Heart School, Ward No.11, Sri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar against the decree of eviction dated 31.05.2011 passed by learned trial court in suit No.2/2001 (Balwant Singh through LR's & Ors. Vs. Denzil Najrath) on the ground of default in payment of rent of Rs.1,08,000/-, and bonafide necessity of the landlord. The learned trial court has decreed the suit under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') and on payment of arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/-, the benefit of first default was given in terms of Section 13 (6) of the Act of 1950.

(2.) Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant- defendant submitted that the findings of the learned trial court are perverse and since admittedly the sons of plaintiff- Balwant Singh, namely, Swarn Singh and Nirmal Singh were living separately after their marriage since 1997, therefore, there was no question of any bonafide need of the landlord for the three families to live together; and even though in the evidence recorded by the learned trial court of only one of the plaintiff's son, namely, Swarn Singh, who however, has not reiterated any such bonafide need even then the he learned trial court has decreed the suit for eviction, which decree deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that the suit premises comprising of 8 rooms and a compound, measuring 72 Ft. x 152 Ft. was given on rent to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.750/-, was purchased by the plaintiff only on 25.02.2000 and 16.05.2000 by three separate sale deeds from the original owner, namely, Sh. Krishan Chandra Paliwal and since the sons of plaintiff- Balwant Singh were already living separately since 1997, therefore, at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2001, there was no bonafide need of the suit premises. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court in this regard are perverse and substantial question of law arises in the matter and this appeal deserves to be admitted.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania, learned counsel for the respondentsplaintiffs vehemently submitted that the suit premises was admittedly given to the defendant-tenant way-back in the year 1984 and thereafter twice the rent was increased on his demand for further improvement and renovation in the suit premises, which the plaintifflandlord carried out and in the end of year 2000, the rent of Rs.3000/- per month was agreed to be paid. However, since the defendant stopped to pay the rent, therefore, the plaintiff had to file said suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent. Further, drawing the attention of the Court towards the affidavit filed by Swarn Singh, he submitted that in paras 7 and 8 of the said affidavit, the said witness has clearly stated that House No.79, situated in Ward No.19 in Sri Karanpur was very small for family of both the married brothers and father to live together, and therefore, they needed the suit premises situated in Ward No.11, which comprised of 8 rooms and for the family of deponent Swaran Singh with five members and three members in the family of other brother, namely, Nirmal Singh alongwith their parents and even the sister's son, namely, Gurvinder Singh who was assisting them in their business and was living with them, the said premise was very small, therefore, they needed the suit premises. He also submitted that besides their brother's family, there were three sisters who were married but were regularly coming their house for meeting their parents and, therefore, the premises already available was very short of the requirement; and as far as the other plots of land were concerned, the same were already sold to other parties on 23.08.2002. Thus, no alternative accommodation was also available to the plaintiffs' family. He, therefore, submitted that bonafide need was fully established before the learned trial Court.