RATAN LAL Vs. MISHRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Pali dated 15.9.1983 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Pali dated 17.9.1981, decreeing the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide necessity and sub-letting. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON October 4, 1973, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for rent and ejectment with the allegations in short, as follows : On 1.4.1969 she let out front portion of her building situated in the Bikaneria Bas, Pali consisting of six rooms etc. (hereinafter to be referred to as the suit premises) to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. He has not paid rent since January 1, 1972. From time to time, he sub-let northern rooms of the suit premises to Mohanlal Brahmin. Om Prakash Brahmin and one Sardarji against the terms of the tenancy. The suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by her as her family has considerably expanded i.e., her eldest son Ganga Bishan has three children, he is appearing in C.A. Final examination, marriage of the second son is going to be held on 2.11.1973 and separate accommodation is needed for studies by the children. Despite several requests and service of notice, the defendant has not vacated the suit premises. The defendant admits in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and he duly received her notice of demand and ejectment. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been defined. He has further averred that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises even prior to its purchase by the plaintiff, it was never agreed in between the parties that he would not sub-let any portion of the suit premises and the rent has been paid. On the application of the defendant, rent was determined under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called the Act) and was duly paid by the defendant. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court held that it was agreed upon in between the parties that the defendant would not sub-let any part of the suit premises, the defendant had sub-let two rooms of the suit premises from time to time to Mohanlal, Om Prakash, Kantilal and one Sardarji, the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for her family and the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if the decree for ejectment is not passed and accordingly decreed the suit for the ejectment. The defendant preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned District Judge as said above.

(3.) IT is well proved from the defendant's application, plaintiff's reply and defendant's rejoinder that following accommodation have been acquired by the plaintiff and other members of her family during the pendency of the second appeal :-