LALITA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, petitioner and respondents decree holders' writ petition is heard finally as in the petition order is challenged by the petitioner which is in favour of the respondent decree holders only.

(2.) It will be beneficial rather say necessary to narrate the facts of civil suit No. 369/1994 filed by the respondent-landlords predecessor Smt. Satwant Kaur against Dhundh Singhs (originally-tenant) descendants who are also respondents in this writ petition. Said Smt. Satwant Kaur filed the suit No. 369/1994 for eviction of her tenants wherein decree for eviction was passed against the defendant-tenant by the trial court on 5.12.1999 and appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 15.7.2003 and thereafter, second appeal was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 19.9.2003 and ultimately special leave to appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 19.4.2004.

(3.) The plaintiff Satwant Kaur filed Civil Original Suit No.369/1994 for eviction against the tenants with the allegations that the suit property was initially let out to one Dhundh Singh on 5.9.1966 on rent of Rs.200/- per month. Dhundh Singh was doing the business of tent house in the suit premises. He died on 13.8.1991. Dhundh Singh's legal representatives did not pay the rent of the suit property from 1.4.1991 and more than three years passed to that, therefore, the tenant became the defaulter in payment of rent. On this ground decree for eviction was sought by the plaintiff. Another ground taken by the plaintiff Smt.Santwant Kaur was that the suit property is required because of the personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff's son. The detail facts are not relevant about the need of the plaintiff's son. To show that there will be no hardship in case decree for eviction is passed against the legal representatives of the original tenant,the plaintiff submitted that defendant no.1 got the plot measuring 60 ft x 40 ft. and constructed five shops over it which have been let out by him and the defendant also got the area of 10,000 sq.ft. where they are doing their tent business. On these grounds, the plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur filed suit no.369/94 against legal representatives of Dhundh Singh.