BADLANI Vs. A HOOGEWARFE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment with respect to a portion of plaintiff-respondents' house, situated in the city of Ajmer The plaintiff-respondents No. 1 Hoogewerfe is brother, and plaintiffs-respondents No. 2 and 3 are sisters. Plaintiff No. 1 as well as plaintiff No. 3 are married. Plaintiff No. 1 has five children, and plaintiff No. 3 has one daughter. They are joint owners of the property in dispute. The plaintiff's case is that the respondent-plaintiff No. 3 used to live at Mahu with her husband when the latter was posted there as a Railway Engine Driver, and since he had retired from, service, the premises in question were required by the plaintiffs for residence of respondent No. 3, and her family.

(2.) THE defendant denied the suit, and pleaded that there was enough accommodation already available with the plaintiffs, and the suit had been instituted with a motive to increase the rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, however, strenuously contended on the basis of Pammandas vs. Mst. Lachmi Bai (2) that the proper way to decide the question of personal necessity in such a case would be to see whether the plaintiffs stood in bona fide and reasonable necessity to occupy the suit premises at the date of the suit, at the most, while the matter was being investigated in the trial Court and the circumstances which have admittedly arisen after the second appeal was filed in this Court cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to two other single bench decisions of this Court, where, in on ejectment suit by a landlord against his tenant, subsequent events which had taken place during the pendency of the second appeal were taken into consideration. One is Permanent vs. Abdul Kadir (3 ). In that case, the plaintiff had sold away the suit property during the pendency of the second appeal. The learned Judge held that if a change of this character took place after the commencement of the litigation, then it will be in consonance with justice to permit the facts to be brought on record and to decide the matter in light of such facts. In another case, S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 257/1965 Dhingarmal vs. Pukh Raj, decided on 9th August, 1965, it was held that in a case like the present, subsequent circumstances in the interest of justice could be taken into account to shorten the course of litigation. In that case, some Additional accommodation had admittedly fallen vacant during the pendency of the first appeal, and it was held that this circumstance can be taken into consideration.