MANOHAR LAL BAGANI Vs. LEELA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant/tenant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 73/2005, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed while affirming the judgment and eviction decree dated 30.08.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2,. Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 66/2003- Leela & Anr. v. Manohar Lal Bagani, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking eviction of the defendant/tenant from the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bona fide necessity, has been decreed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs, Smt. Leela W/o Sh. Dayaldas and Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Govind Ram, filed the suit under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1950") for seeking eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit in the capacity of members of Joint Hindu Family. The shop in question, situated at 1st B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, was let out to the appellant/defendant. In the suit shop, the defendant is carrying on the business of shoes in the name of style of "Maya Chappals". The plaintiffs sought eviction on the ground of personal and bona fide necessity of plaintiff No. 2, Manohar Lal. The plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Leela Devi, is the wife of Sh. Dayaldas, who is the real brother of the respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2. Since, Sh. Dayaldas was living in Hongkong with his family for long period, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant/appellant filed his written statement and denied the factum of property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family and pleaded that the plaintiffs have no bona fide need.