GENERAL AUTO AGENCIES BHAGAT Vs. HAZARI SINGH GOHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance filed by the tenant -defendant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26 -8 -75 has come up again for decision before this Court. Earlier, this Court under its judgment dated 7 -3 -1977 had dealt with this Special Appeal, and while all the points in controversy were disposed of but in view of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act) as amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, which was later on replaced by an Act (No. 14 of 1976), an additional issue on the respective comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant was framed and the same was remitted to the trial court for decision in accordance with law. The finding of the trial court on the additional issue was given on November 4, 1980 and hence the matter has again come up before us.

(2.) THE disputed premises consisting of ground floor (show rooms) open space and the first floor are part of a building situated at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur, known as 'Bhagat Bhawan'. M/s General Auto Agencies (for short the defendant) are tenants in the suit premises for the last many years. The suit premises were purchased by Hazari Singh, who shall hereinafter be described as the plaintiff, from the previous owner on November 7, 1968 under a sale deed. Thus, the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff at Rs. 425/ - p.m., the rent which the defendant was paying to the previous owner. A suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act as well as on the ground of default, as contained in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on November 30, 1970 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, which was transferred for disposal to the Additional District Judge (2) Jaipur City. The suit was contested by the defendant on both the counts. The defendant also raised a plea that the suit was not maintainable, as it was filed against M/s General Auto - Agencies, which was not a juristic person. Other pleas were also raised. The trial court under its judgment dated 21 -11 -74 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction on both the counts, i.e. personal bonafide necessity and defaults. The defendant preferred a first appeal in this Court, and the learned Single Judge of this Court under his judgment dated 26 -8 1975 dismissed the S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1 of 1975 upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendant preferred a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance in this Court, and this Court under its judgment dated 7 -3 -1977, though held that the suit on the ground of default Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act could not be decreed, because the arrears of rent and interest had been deposited by the defendant in the trial court on the first date of hearing has confirmed the finding of the learned trial court on the reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff with regard to the suit premises.

(3.) WE have heard at length the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. Besides challenging the finding of the trial court on the additional issue, the learned Advocate for the defendant has also tried to address arguments on issue No. 8 framed by the trial court with regard to the maintainability of the suit against the defendant on the ground that the defendant is not a legal entity. But, in our opinion, the matter is no longer open, and stands decided by the judgment of this Court dated 7 -3 -77 under which as already stated all the points excepting the point of comparative hardship which arose as a result of the amendment and introduction of Section 14(2) of the Act, were decided. It will appear from the judgment of this Court dated March 7, 1977 that under the four points, which were then urged before this Court, point No. 1 urged was. 'that the suit was not maintainable, as it was filed against M/s General Auto Agencies, which was a not a juristic person'. The finding of the trial court as well as of the learned Single Judge was that the suit was property filed against the defendant. During the course of arguments before this Court on March, 7, 1977, the finding of the trial court that the suit was properly filed against the defendant was not challenged. It will be pertinent to extract (he relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of this Court: