BHARTIYA JEEVAN BIMA NIGAM Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated May 24, 1984 by which the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment has been decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal may be summarized thus. On August 12, 1981, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity and using demised premises inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out with the allegations, in short, as follows. Only July 22, 1971, the defendant No. 1 took the suit building situated outside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for opening its branch (Unit No. 2). There is no other house in the city of Jodhpur for his residence. Presently, he is living with his father in his house situated at Kahanda Falsa, Jodhpur. It is a highly congested area of Jodhpur city. He is Head of the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Units. His family consists of himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. He has two rooms only for the use of his family in the said house of his father. It is very difficult to take car there and bring it there from. He has scarcity of fresh air there. It is not possible to have a garden there. He is not able to bring up and educate his children to his entire satisfaction. As such the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by him for his residence. On the other hand, the defendants have constructed a building at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and have shifted their said branch (Unit No. 2) there and the suit premises is lying vacant. He would suffer greater hardship if the suit is not decreed and the defendants would not suffer any hardship or inconvenience as they have already shifted their branch from the suit premises to their said newly constructed building. They have no justification to retain the suit premises and open any other office therein. They have not vacated it despite several demands and registered notices.

(2.) ON September 6, 1981, the plaintiff moved an application, paper No. B 16/1-2, for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the plea that he is also entitled to get the decree for ejectment on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as on March 01, 1981 the defendants have shifted their branch from the suit premises to their newly constructed building situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and have kept locked the suit premises since then without any reasonable cause. On October 3, 1981 the defendants filed their reply to the said application admitting that the said branch has been shifted to the said newly constructed building and stating that the suit premises is still being used by them. After hearing the parties, the application was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to amend his plaint accordingly. Accordingly, amended plaint was filed.

(3.) THE plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 his father Shri Ram Ratan, P.W. 2, Incharge, Blood Bank, Jodhpur, Dr. Harikishan Dhoot, P.W. 3, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopaedics Dr. J.C. Sharma, P.W. 4, Driver of the M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur Raghunath Singh, PW5, Professor and Head, Department of Medicines cum Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, Dr. K. Bannerji, P.W. 6 and Ramdas Singha P.W. 7 besides producing and proving 19 documents. The defendants have examined Branch Manager Shri Gulab Chand Golechha, D.W. 1 and Regional Manager Shri Radhey Shyam, D.W. 2 and have filed and proved two documents. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the rent of the months of June and July, 1981 and mesne profits from August 1, 1981 at the rate of Rs. 800 per month, he needs the suit reasonably and bonafide, he would suffer greater hardship if decree is not passed in his favour and he is not entitled to decree for ejectment on the ground mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rent Control Act as the suit has been filed within six months of the non-user of the suit premises.