HANSRAJ Vs. JEETMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These first appeals under Section 96 CPC have been filed by the defendants and plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 24.09.1990 passed by Additional District Judge, Bikaner, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and eviction has been partially decreed and the defendants have been ordered to be evicted from half of the suit shop. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff filed the suit on 22.03.1983 for eviction of tenants from shop and a room situated at K.E.M. Road, Bikaner and for arrears of rent against the defendants with the averments that the shop and the room are on rent with the defendants from before 1962, whose rent was Rs. 85/- per month other than water and electricity; the defendants stopped payment of rent without any reason w.e.f. Falgun Badi Amavasya Samvat 2027 and refused to pay the rent and defaulted in payment of rent for over six months; whereafter the dispute was settled between the parties, whereby, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/- w.e.f. 31.01.1978 and a rent note was executed, which was got registered and a new tenancy came into existence; it was alleged that w.e.f. 01.02.1981 the defendants stopped paying rent and, therefore, they have become defaulters and thus the plaintiff was entitled to seek possession; it was also claimed that the suit shop was required for personal use as a shop had been taken on rent in the name of plaintiff's father at Maru Nayak Ji temple, which is quite small; after death of father, an objection being raised by his brother and looking to the age, the plaintiff now cannot do the work of sweet manufacturing; the plaintiff has two sons, elder being Ram Nath, who was educated and as the shop was not vacated in the earlier suit, he joined government service; his second son Asha Ram has little interest in studies and has failed in Class 10th and does not want to study further and has learnt the work of pipe line fitting for water supply and was involved in petty jobs and has assumed proficiency; the shop was required for Asha Ram for pipe fitting and related goods hardware, paints, electricity goods etc. and the room above the shop was required for accounts and correspondence etc. for being put to said use; it was also claimed that the plaintiff wants to construct underground under the shop for storing pipes and heavy goods and would use the same as go-down; if the shop was not vacated his young son would be rendered unemployed; defendants have another shop in the same row and has another shop at Court Gate, Bikaner where they could do their business and have sufficient income from other shops; they have employed a servant and a Munim for recovery of rent and the suit shop was not required by them; the shops were also available in other parts of Bikaner; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit shop and room be got vacated and arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 7,500/- be awarded.

(2.) A written statement was filed by the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint and in additional pleas it was claimed that defendants have never stopped payment of rent and, therefore, are not defaulter; the rent note was got executed, again on misleading talks and an illegal agreement has been executed; it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court framed six issues; on behalf of the plaintiff six witnesses were examined; on behalf of the defendants three witnesses were examined.