MOOL CHAND Vs. SAGAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-tenant Sh. Mool Chand has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction dated 31. 10. 2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana; District Sikar. THE parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.

(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff-landlord filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 30. 5. 1992 with the averments that suit shop situated in Shrimadhopur was mortgaged by the plaintiff and his father in favour of the defendant Mool Chand and his father for a consideration of Rs. 8,200/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 2. 6. 1962 with a condition that on payment of the mortgage money, a rent note at the prevalent market rate of rent would be executed by them. THE plaintiff wanted to redeem the mortgaged shop by making the payment but the creditors declined to do so. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption. Learned Additional District Judge, Neem-ka-Thana passed preliminary decree of redemption on 24. 2. 1987. In pursuance of this preliminary decree, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 8,200/- in the bank on 12. 3. 1987. THEreafter, final decree of redemption was passed on 25. 2. 1992. THE defendant now is occupying the suit shop as a tenant since 12. 3. 1987.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant- tenant following points arise for determination. (i) Whether the suit was not maintainable in absence of all the legal heirs of late Sh. Bhoora Mal? (ii) Whether the findings of the trial court on reasonable and bonafide requirement as well as comparative hardship are not justified? (iii) Whether partial eviction is possible?