SOONDARAM Vs. RAMESHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant -tenants' second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

(2.) SINCE on the date of the suit the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was not applied to Chomu from which this case comes, the plaintiffs claimed ejectment by termination of tenancy, though just in passing, it was also mentioned that the shop was required for the personal necessity of the plaintiffs who are brothers. During the pendency of the suit, the Act was applied to Chomu on 30.3.1967. The defendant tenants resisted the plaintiffs' suit and the trial court by its judgment dated 17.2.1969 dimissed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge, Jaipur Dist, Jaipur decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendants filed second appeal to this Court which was dismissed by my learned brother Kan Singh J., on 23.1.1973, on a concession being made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Act was not applicable to Chomu. However, it was subsequently discovered that the Act had been applied to Chomu during the pendency of the suit, as stated above. A review application was filed and same was granted, and it is how the appeal has now again come up for disposal.

(3.) I may observe straight -away that the allegation regarding personal necessity in the notice as well as in the plaint is undoubtedly very vague and sweeping but in the present case it cannot be fatal to the plaintiffs because at the time when the notice was given and the suit was filed the Act did not apply to the case at all, and, therefore, no fault can be found with the plaintiffs for not making the allegation regarding personal necessity in detail. The case is, therefore; clearly taken out of the perview of the two authorities relied upon by the learned counsel.