RAM DAYAL Vs. RAM NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment.

(2.) THE case for the plaintiff respondent is that the defendant rented certain premises mentioned in para (1) of the plaint from the plaintiff at a rent of Rs. 8/- per mensem by a deed dated Poh Sudi 1, Smt. 2002. THEreafter the plaintiff wanted to build a second storey and it was alleged that the defendant agreed to vacate the premises, or to pay Rs. 15/- for the upper storey and Rs. 8/- for the lower storey as rent per mensem. It was alleged that after the upper storey was built the defendant took possession of it without permission of the plaintiff but did not pay Rs. 23/- as agreed upon and also refused to vacate the premises. A notice was served but to no effect. THE plaintiff claimed Rs. 31/8/- by way of rent in arrears and prayed for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that it was required for his bona fide personal necessity.

(3.) IN the recent Act known as the Rajasthan Premises (Control of rent and eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950), the matter of eviction of tenants is provided under sec. 13 and clause (h) thereof requires the Court to see that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use or occupation of himself or his family. What is important, therefore, to see is that the needs of the landlord are bona fide, and once the needs are bona fide in respect of a portion of the leased premises, the landlord has a right to come to court to ask for eviction of the tenant from the entire leased premises. The contention of the defendant, that he may be allowed to retain possession of a small portion of the first storey for which no definite evidence has been led by the plaintiff as to his own requirement, has, therefore, no force.