BALASHRAM SOCIETY Vs. PURAN INDORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cross - appeals being (1) SB Civil Second Appeal No.15/2006 � Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria, Proprietor, M/s. Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works vs. Balashram Society and (2) SB Civil Second Appeal No.391/2007 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria, have been filed by the tenant and landlord respectively being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 of the appellate court below of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur deciding the cross-appeals of both the parties and while dismissing the defendant � tenant's appeal No.27/2000 � Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria vs. Balashram Society, the learned appellate court below, also dismissed the plaintiff � landlord's appeal No.58/2000 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999 of the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Udaipur in eviction Suit No.16/95 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria in respect of suit shop let out on 13.01.1976 for a monthly rent of Rs.120/- to Shri Puran Indoria

(2.) THE eviction suit No.16/95 � Balashram Society vs. Puran Indoria s/o Gauridutt Indoria, Proprietor of Indoria Fabricators and Engineering Works, Udia Pole, Udaipur, was filed on 19.07.1984, inter alia, on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting by tenant to sub-tenant M/s. Kusum Industries, bonafide need of the landlord of the suit premises and alternative accommodation becoming available to the defendant � tenant in the form of an industrial plot No.F-219 situated at Mewar Industrial Area, Road No.1, Madri, Udaipur, in which the defendant � tenant had started manufacturing activities of fabrication of machines, spare parts etc. THE learned trial court decreed the suit of eviction in respect of the suit shop measuring 20 x 30 ft., in which tenant installed lathe machines and was doing miscellaneous engineering and fabrication activities, on the ground than an alternative accommodation became available to the defendant � tenant under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act and decided the issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff - landlord. THE other issues were, however, decided against the plaintiff � landlord, except the issue of default in payment of rent and the benefit of first default was given to the defendant - tenant under Section 13(6) of the 1950 Act.

(3.) IT is well settled that the eviction decree, even on one of the grounds specified in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 in various Clauses of Section 13(1) (a) to (l) can be maintained and presently the substantial question of law framed in the defendant � tenant's appeal only pertains to eviction granted by both the courts below on the ground specified under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act, which is reproduced as under: