RAMESHWARLAL Vs. RAGHUNATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated November 27, 1975. The relevant facts giving rise to this second appeal may briefly be stated. The plaintiff -respondents Raghunathdas and Surajmal instituted a suit against Bhonrilal on March 20, 1968 in the court of Munsiff, Jaipur City, (West), for eviction from the shop fully described in Paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs also claimed arrears of rent and mesne profits amounting to Rs. 78/ - at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month for the period from December 21, 1967 to March 18, 1968 It was alleged in the plaint that Bhonrilal took the shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month from Madan Gopal, and executed a rent note in his favour on June 23, 1944. After the death of Madan Gopal, his heirs Surajnarain etc. sold the shop to the plaintiffs on December 21, 1967 by a registered sale deed dated January 3, 1968. Bhonrilal was informed orally about the sale of the shop and from December 21, 1967, Bhonrilal became tenant of the plaintiffs. On January 19, 1968, the plaintiffs sent a registered notice to Bhonrilal terminating the tenancy. This notice was served upon Bhonrilal on January 13, 1968 When Bhonri Lal did not vacate the shop inspite of notice, the plaintiffs brought the suit, as stated above, and sought eviction of Bhonrilal on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) Bhonrilal contested the suit. He filed written statement on July 18, 1868. He admitted that the suit shop was cured by Madan Gopal and it was let cut to him on the monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. He denied having executed any rent note on Jure 23, 1944. He also denied that the heirs of deceased Madan Gopal had sold the shop to the plaintiffs. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if any such sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, it was a sham and fictitious transaction. He also denied that the plaintiffs required the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for their personal use. It was further alleged that since he got standard rent of the suit shop fixed from the court and since he was not agreeable to increase the rent of the suit shop, the plaintiffs have brought this suit on wrong facts. He denied having received notice to quit on January 13, 1968 He alleged that since he carried on business in the suit shop in the name of Messers Rameshwarlal Bhonrilal, a partnership firm, and since this shop was let out for the use of the partnership business, all the partners of the firm of Messrs Rameshwar Lal Bhonrilal were necessary parties and unless all the partners of the said firm were impleaded as defendants, the suit was not maintainable. Some more pleas were raised, but it is not necessary to mention them here.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed by the trial court on September 2, 1968, - -