LAWS(RAJ)-1971-3-7

RAJ RANI Vs. RAMANLAL AGARWAL

Decided On March 24, 1971
RAJ RANI Appellant
V/S
RAMANLAL AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff appellants in the Court of Munsif (West), Ajmer on 3rd March 1966 for ejectment and arrears of rent and other charges amounting Rs. 200, THE plaintiffs are Smt. Raj Rani, her two sons, 4 daughters and her husband's brother Dwarka Nath. THEir case as set out in the plaint is that the house in question bearing AMC XII/71 situate at Hathi Bhata, Ajmer, was rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 22. It was urged that the defendant did not pay rent for 4 months from 1-10 1965 to 31st. January, 1966 and so also electric and water charges as well as house tax for the aforesaid period, and consequently the plaintiff claimed rent, mesne profits, and other charges as mentioned above for the period from 1-10-1965 to 28th February, 1966. It was alleged in the plaint that the house in question was required reasonably and bonafide for the personal necessity of the plaintiffs. THE plaintiffs also allege that the defendant had created nui-snce in the promises by carrying on dying work therein even though the premises were originally rented out only for residential purposes. Thus the plaintiff's claim for ejectment was based on 3 grounds viz - (i) Default in payment of rent for 4 months, (ii) Reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the landlord, (iii) Creation of nuisance.

(2.) THE defendant in his written statement admitted to have taken the suit house on rent from plaintiff appellant No. 8 Dwarkanath at the rate of Rs. 22 per month, but pleaded that he was to pay only electric charges besides the rent but water charges and house tax were not to be paid separately. He also denied having committed default in payment of rent. THE alleged personal necessity of the landlord was also denied.

(3.) SO far as the question of nuisance is concerned, admittedly the defendant has been carrying on dying work in the premises in question for a very long time and therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped from pleading that it amounts to nuisance.