ARUN KUMAR Vs. SURAJMAL RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for eviction, inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 16.2.1991. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Civil First Appeal on 3.7.2000 filed by the tenant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this special appeal filed by the tenant.

(2.) Briefly put, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit aforesaid on 8.3.1982 with the averments in the plaint that on the first floor of the premises situated at 62 Shopping Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, three rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom were taken on rent by the defendant from him on 1.9.1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. According to the plaintiff, advance rent for the month of September, 1980 of Rs. 750/- was paid on 1.9.1980 and receipt was obtained. However, the tenant did not make payment of any further rent and the rent was due from the month of October, 1980. Alleging default in payment of rent for over six months; the plaintiff averred that he was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of default. The plaintiff also averred that in the land in question, the plaintiff and his brothers Chiranjilal, Banshidhar, Narainlal and Govind Prasad were co-owners and all the brothers were carrying on business in the State of Assam and by rotation residing at Jaipur with their families. According to the plaintiff, the premises in which he was residing was not sufficient for the whole family and the demised premises were required by him for himself and his brothers. The plaintiff also averred his suffering greater hardship for want of accommodation.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on several scores. He averred in the written statement that the plot in question was of Jamna Devi and the plaintiff was living on rent in this house and also recovering rent. It has been alleged that the suit premises were taken on rent on 1.9.1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 251/- only and not Rs. 750/- per month. According to the defendant, the premises were earlier on rent with one Vimla Devi Somani at the monthly rent of Rs. 251/-only. He had made the payment of the rent of Rs. 251/- for the month of September, 1980 but no receipt was given. The defendant denied his having committed any default and averred that rent was sent by money order which was returned back and then the rent was deposited under section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The defendant denied the averments regarding reasonable and bona fide necessity and averred that the house which is referred by the plaintiff to be available with the defendant was with him before taking the suit premises on rent and in those premises, the defendant was running a workshop and was not used for residence.