STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GOKAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for ejectment. There is no dispute between the parties that the defendant-appellant is the tenant of the plaintiff-respondents of a house situate in Chat Darwaza in Jaipur City more particularly described in Para. No. I of the plaint. The plaintiffs in order to get over the disability imposed on them in getting a decree for ejectment under section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, pleaded inter alia that they required the said house for their own use and occupation. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant mainly on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not require the house reasonably and bona fide for their own use and that this plea must be deemed to be res judicata as their earlier suit for the ejectment of the defendant had been dismissed on 27th April, 1962 by the Additional Munsiff, Jaipur City-a copy of the judgment of that court-Ex. A/1 is on record. Both the courts below have decided these points against the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has urged that the question that the plaintiffs required the house in dispute reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation which must be deemed to have been decided against the plaintiffs by virtue of Ex. A/1 cannot be re-agitated. He has also challenged the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court on this point. The last contention cannot be urged in this second appeal as it is a question of fact.

(3.) The only point therefore for decision of this appeal is, whether the case of the plaintiff-respondents that they required the house in dispute reasonably and bonafide for their own use must be deemed to be res judicata, In order to examine this point, it is necessary to mention the circumstances under which the judgment in the previous suit was pronounced. There is no doubt that in the previous suit for the ejectment of the defendant the plaintiffs had also mentioned that they required the house in dispute reasonably and bonafide for their own use. They had taken another plea of ejecting the defendant that he had defaulted in the matter of the payment of rent which disentitled him to take advantage of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. A number of issues were framed in that case. The first issue related to the bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiffs and the second related to default. On 27th April, 1962, the plaintiff filed an application relevant part of which is, as follows-