KAHTOON BEGUM Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three second appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1998 whereby learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur while dismissing three appeals affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 9.4.1997.

(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the suit shop was let out on 12.8.1961 at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the original tenant Sh. Chhote Khan by Jaipur Cloth Retailer Association (in short the Association). THE Association vide registered gift deed Ex. 5 dated 20.2.1986 gifted this shop to Pushthi Margiya Vaishanva Mandal (in short the Mandal) under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide a registered notice dated 25.2.1986. THE Mandal vide registered sale deed Ex.1 dated 12.9.1986 sold this shop to the plaintiff-landlord Sh. Bhagwan Das for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide registered notice dated 4.10.1986, who filed the present suit on 25.2.1987 for arrears of rent and eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal reasonable and bonafide requirement as pleaded in paras 5 to 7 of the plaint.

(3.) PRIOR to coming on merits of the appeals, it would be appropriate to deal with some of the applications filed on behalf of the appellants. It is also made clear that during the pendency of these second appeals, the appellant Smt. Khatun Begum expired, hence her legal representatives were brought on record. One application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the memo of appeal was filed in appeal No. 515/1998 for permission to raise legal objections under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act). Since such objections have already been taken in remaining two second appeals, it is unnecessary to decide this application separately. Two applications-one under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and other under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement were submitted in second appeal No. 635/1998 filed by Sh. Abdul Salam. Both the applications contain similar facts that plaintiff's father Sh. Madan Gopal was carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Gordhan Das and Sh. Gordhan Das elder brother of the plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Mangi Lal and thus the plaintiff's father had two shops and during the pendency of the first appeal, plaintiff's father expired in the month of June, 1997 and his both the sons-the plaintiff and his elder brother Gordhan Das have got one shop each and thus the plaintiff's need has been satisfied. It was also stated in these two application that this question was raised before the First Appellate Court but the same was not considered by the First Appellate Court and these are subsequent events which should be taken into consideration either in this second appeal or permission may be granted to amend the written statement. The plaintiff-respondent filed separate reply of both the applications denying all these averments with a specific plea that plaintiff's father was having only one shop in which plaintiff's brother was and is still carrying on his business during the lifetime of their father and thus this fact is wrong that the plaintiff and his brother each have got one shop after the death of their father which took place in October, 1997 and thus this is not a case of any subsequent event. It is also significant to say here that in para 11 of the memo of appeal No. 515/1998 it is pleaded that after the death of Sh. Madan Gopal, the shop which was in possession of Madan Gopal came to the plaintiff and initially Sh. Madan Gopal had two shops. In one shop Sh. Madan Gopal was carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Gordhan Das while in second shop he was doing business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Bhagwan Das and now the plaintiff has started his business in the said shop and thus the plaintiff's need stands satisfied. Similar pleas were raised in para 8 of remaining two second appeals with a marked difference that in second shop the plaintiff's father was carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Mangi Lal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these are subsequent events which should be taken into consideration by this Court or permission for amending the written statement should be granted and the case may remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Learned senior counsel Sh. Mehta appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 opposed these applications.