LAWS(RAJ)-1996-12-44

JAGDEV SINGH Vs. AMRIT KAUR

Decided On December 20, 1996
JAGDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
AMRIT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed the instant First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.86 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar whereby suit for eviction filed by landlord-plaintiff- respondents was decreed against the tenant-defendant-appellant under Clause (h) of sub-sec. 10F of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 1950).

(2.) BRIEF facts leading up to filing of the instant First Appeal are that the land-lord-plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the tenant-defendant-appellant on 25.8.81 on the ground of default, subletting and reasonable and bona fide necessity. According to the plain averments it is alleged that the plaintiffs house having constructed ground floor and first floor at 3, Public Park, Sri Ganganagar. Its western portion belongs to the plaintiff No. 2 and the eastern portion belongs to plaintiff No. 1. The tenant-defendat-appellant took suit premises on the ground floor measuring 21-1/4'x31-1/4' on rent of Rs. 200/- per month from 1.7.64 from the plaintiff No. 1 and executed rent note on 8.7.64. After some time the defendant further took portion measuring 10'x 27' belonging to plaintiff No. 2 on rent and the rent of entire portion was fixed at Rs. 360/- per month.

(3.) IT is also alleged in the plaint that defendant took the suit premises on rent as proprietor of Marwah Automobiles in his individual capacity and then thereafter he has shifted his business to Bikaner and started residing there permanently. The tenant-defendant has sublet the suit premises to his brothers without consent of the plaintiffs and thus he has parted with the possession of the suit premises. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant has constructed new show room at 67-H Block, Sri Ganganagar for his firm Marwah Automobiles and he is carrying on his business there. Therefore, the defendant is not in need of the suit premises.