PADMAWATI AND ANOTHER Vs. SHYAM KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, on the application of the defendant-appellant No. 2, the Rajasthan Housing Board, allotted House No.310 in Sector No.8 of Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, to him according to his income group. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant appellants on the ground that they acquired suitable accommodation for their own residence. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by learned M.J.M. (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.1993. On appeal, the decree was confirmed by learned A.D.J. No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 6.1.1995. This decree has been challenged in this Second Appeal.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the defendant-appellants and gone through the judgments passed by both the lower courts including the documents submitted by the counsel for the appellants along with the memo of appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the house which was allotted by the Rajasthan Housing Board to the appellant No. 2 was not suitable hence he sold the same long back. The appellants are not in possession of the said house or any other house except the disputed premises. This aspect was not considered by the lower courts. In such circumstances the decree passed by them deserves to b set-aside. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The house was allotted to the appellant No. 2 on his application. If the same was not suitable, the appellant No. 2 should not have made application for allotment of the house and in case the house was allotted to him, he should not have taken possession of the same. A tenant who got the house allotted from the Rajasthan Housing Board for his own residence, cannot be permitted to sell the same to other person/persons and to continue to occupy the premises which were on rent with him. This tendency should be curbed. Both the lower courts rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant No. 2 had acquired a suitable house for his residence. The findings recorded by the lower courts are findings of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and as such the same is dismissed.