RADHEY SHYAM Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 15-11-2011 and 25-7-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. By the first order dated 15-11-2011 on an application filed by the respondent No.2- plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') in his suit for eviction, the trial court had been pleased to delete para No.11 of affidavits of Dw.2 Suraj Narayan and DW.3 Govind Narayan wherein they sought to take a defence, in the opinion of the trial court, tantamounting to a defence against the ground of default in spite the defence in eviction petition having been earlier struck off under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the 1950 Act'). By the subsequent order dated 25-7-2012, the review petition filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') tenant against the order dated 15-11-2011 was also dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant submitted that the contents of para No.11 of the affidavits filed by DW.2 Suraj Narayan and DW.3 Govind Narayan pertain not to a defence against the ground of default but related to a defence against the eviction petition having been filed malafide, and not on the ground of bonafide and reasonable need. Counsel submitted that this court interpreting the provisions of Section 13 (5) of the 1950 Act has limited the striking off defence thereunder only in respect of default under Section 13 (1) (a) of the 1950 Act. It is submitted that being the legal position, the contents of para No.11 of the affidavits of Dw.2 Suraj Narayan and DW.3 Govind Narayan wholistically construed entailed not so much a defence against the ground of default but a defence against the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord seeking eviction.