SANTLAL Vs. HARBANSSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by way of revision against the order dated 10-7-70 of the munsiff, Ganeanasar regarding the correctness of the issues framed.

(2.) FACTS it is necessary to notice for the disposal of the application briefly stated are these: The landlord instituted a suit against the tenant for his eviction from a shop No. 52/4 situate in Gol Bazar Sri Ganganagar inter alia on the ground that the tenant has his own shops which he is using for his business. The tenant contested the suit. On 6-2-1970 four issues were framed. The first issue is the only issue which has been challenged. It reads as follows:-"1. Has the defendant acquired vacant possession of another suitable premises?" On 6-5-70 an application was moved by the tenant for the amendment or deletion of issue No. 1 on the ground that the admitted case of the parties in the pleadings related to a shop while the issue employed the word "premises". The learned munsiff observed that the use of the word "premises" was proper and rejected the application in so far as this point was concerned. It is against this order on 10th july, 1970 that the present application is directed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argues that the ground on which eviction of the tenant has been claimed is under Section 13 (1) fi) of the Raiasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act"), which applies only to a tenant who has built, acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a suitable residence and not to a shop. The issue No. 1. argued the learned counsel, should accordingly have been whether the defendant acquired vacant possession of another suitable shop and if so what is its effect.