JAYANT DEVNANI Vs. SAVITRI DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant has challenged the judgment & decree dated 04.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.15/2010 (65/2010), by way of the present second appeal, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal has confirmed the judgment & decree dated 08.02.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.461/2002.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original-plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Gupta predecessor of the present respondents, had instituted the suit against the original-defendant Bhagwan Devnani the father of the present appellant on 01.07.1996 seeking eviction on various grounds. It was alleged interalia that on 01.01.1987 the suit premises was let out to the original-defendant Bhagwan Devnani for a period of 11 months on the monthly rent @ Rs.750, by executing the rent note dated 22.03.1987. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the original-defendant had committed default in making payment of rent from March 1995 onwards, and that the plaintiff required the suit premises bonafidely for running the business of his son and that the original-defendant had acquired the alternative accommodation. It was also alleged that the original-defendant had sublet the suit premises to the firm M/s Peugeot, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to require the possession of the suit premises. The said suit was resisted by the original-defendant Bhagwan Devnani by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending interalia that though the tenancy was originally created in favour of the defendant Bhagwan Devnani, the said tenancy was attorned in favour of the firm M/s Peugeot in March 1993. According to the defendant, the plaintiff after the attornment of tenancy in favour of M/s Peugeot, had also started collecting the rent from the said firm since March 1993 onwards, and therefore there was no arrears of rent payable by the defendant as alleged. The original-defendant had also denied the bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and the acquisition of the alternative accommodation by the defendant.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the original-plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Gupta had expired on 16.12.2005, and therefore his legal representatives i.e. present respondent Nos.1 to 5 were substituted in his place. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed the following issues:-