KRISHAN MURARILAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-tenants have filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree for eviction dtd. 3/3/2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 45/1998 by Civil Judge (SD) Bayana, Bharatpur, which has been affirmed in the First Appeal 14/2001 vide judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2003 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana (Bharatpur).

(2.) The rented premise is a shop in question situated at Railway Station, Bajariya, Bayana alleged to be in tenancy of the predecessors of defendants since 21/10/1961. Appellants are successors of original tenant Sh. Bajanlal and Sh. Manoharlal. Respondents-landlords filed eviction suit on 21/2/1995 on the ground of default, bona fide and personal necessity and material alteration invoking the provisions of Sec. 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It was alleged that defendants have neither paid nor tendered rent for the period from 6/6/1994 to 20/2/1995. The last paid rate of rent was Rs.150.00 per month; the shop was purchased for the need of Sh. Purshotam, who is a married but unemployed person and wants to start a restaurant and rest-house in the rented shop. Defendant-tenants filed written statements.

(3.) Both parties adduced their evidence and after full fledged trial, the trial court passed the decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide and personal necessity on the ground of causing material alteration to the rented shop. Though, the defendants-tenants were found defaulter in payment of rent, however, a benefit of first default was accorded. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of both parties, found that Sh. Purshotam is not having any independent business and if he is helping in the joint business of family, it may not be observed that the shop is not required for starting of his own and independent business of restaurant and rest-house. According to the size and situation of the shop, the same was found suitable to be used for the purpose of restaurant and rest-house. Issues of comparative hardship and partial eviction, were also discussed independently and were decided in favour of plaintiffs-landlords. The trial court also found that the defendants have caused material alteration to the rented shop by raising a construction of pakka latrine without permission of the landlords.