MAHENDRA YADAV Vs. BHAGWAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendants-tenant (hereinafter referred as "tenant") have preferred this first appeal under Sec. 96 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dtd. 17/8/2004 in Civil Suit No.2/2003 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No.2, Alwar whereby and whereunder suit for eviction and recovery of rent has been decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that rented premises a house No.308, Arya Nagar measuring 761 Sq. Yards comprising of four rooms, kitchen, toilet, 2 warrandah, gallary etc., was let out by original plaintiff Krishan Sharan Sharma to original tenant Ghasi Ram Yadav way back in July, 1967 at the rate of Rs.140.00 per month for the purpose of residence. Since the original tenant committed default in payment of rent and the original plaintiff landlord required the house for his own family hence a civil suit for eviction invoking the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(a) and (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter 'the Rent Act') was filed on 25/11/2000. At the time of institution of suit for eviction the original tenant Ghasi Ram Yadav had passed away hence the suit was filed against (i) Mahendra Yadav (younger son) and (ii) Uma Yadav (widow of elder son Ram Singh Yadav), impleading them as defendants No.1 and 2, who were stated to be in possession of the rented house. During pendency of suit, the original plaintiff Krishan Sharan Sharma also passed away, hence his wife and son were allowed to continue proceedings of the suit for eviction. The trial court after recording evidence of both parties and holding a full fledged trial recorded findings of fact that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months, however, the benefit of first default was extended. The trial court found that the rented house is required to plaintiff landlord for residence of his own family and the need of plaintiff is bonafide and reasonable, hence, the suit for eviction was decreed on ground of personal and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff landlord vide judgment dtd. 17/8/2004.

(3.) Before entering into merits of the judgment of trial court on grounds challenged by appellants, since some subsequent developments have occurred during pendency of first appeal, which are undisputed and in the opinion of this court have material bearing on merits of appeal hence it is necessary to consider the effect of these undisputed subsequent facts first.