UMRAO MAL Vs. HEERA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from certain premises known as a 'nohra' situated in the town of Alwar.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff-respondent the suit Nohra including the constructions thereon originally belonged to the State of Rajasthan. The premises were let out to the defendant-appellant for residence for a period of ten years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 14. 50. On 15th April, 1964 the suit premises were purchased by the plaintiff. Thereafter he served the tenant with a notice on 6th June. 1966 and terminated the tenancy. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide reasonable necessity. He averred that he wanted to construct a so-down and also was desirous of putting up a mill for the manufacture of sugar, oil and 'dal'. It was also averred that the defendant tenant had cut certain trees standing on the premises and thus had damaged the property. The decree of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 43. 50 was also prayed for. 2-A. The defendant contested the suit. It was admitted that the suit Nohra originally belonged to the State of Rajas-than and the same had been subsequently sold to the plaintiff. It was also admitted that the premises were let out by the State to the, defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 14. 50. It was, however, asserted that the premises had been let out to the defendant for a manufacturing purpose and the defendant had put up a chaff-cutting machine on the land. It was denied that the plaintiff wanted the suit premises for his bona fide personal necessity. The cutting of the trees was also denied. The receipt of notice for termination of the tenancy was admitted but it was stated that the notice was not valid, in that, a six-month notice for terminating the lease was required to be given. According to the defendant the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in seeking the ejectment of the defendant as he wanted to enhance the rent.

(3.) THE learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2. Alwar before whom the suit was filed framed a number of issues. He held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for his bona fide reasonable necessity. He however did not accept the plaintiff's plea that the defendant had materially damaged the suit premises. Further, he held the notice for termination of the tenancy to be valid. In the result he decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment.