GEETA DEVI Vs. SANWAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition, the petitioners plaintiffs have challenged the order dated Sept. 8,1989, passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu passed in Civil Original Suit No. 64 of 1980 whereby the learned Distt. Judge held that looking to the nature of the suit to the determination of the rent in terms of Sec. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was required.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) The petitioners filed a suit for possession against the non-petitioner defendant on the ground that the defendant was a licencee in possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs revoked the license and asked the non-petitioner to hand over possession. The respondent did not comply with the practise. The plaintiffs also claimed mense profits. Incidently, the plaintiffs also averred that the non-petitioner defendant was a tenant in respect of the above suit property for a fixed term. After the expiry of the above term, the defendant non-petitioner vacated the premises and handed over the same to him, but, some goods were lying belonging to the non-petitioner. Permission was obtained from the petitioners plaintiffs for the same. The plaintiffs by way of caution also alleged personal bona fide necessity and in that connection also stated that the defendant has got his own accommodation. Learned counsel has submitted that merely by grounds which may incidently happened to be identical with the grounds of eviction as enshrined in Sec. 13 of the Act, the nature of the suit cannot be changed. The nature of the suit of the plaintiff must be ascertained with the material averments by him. If the plaintiffs brought a suit for possession on the basis of revocation of license and refusal by the defendant to vacate the premises, such a suit cannot be converted into a suit based on the grounds enumerated in Sec. 13 of the Act. Even if the plaintiffs made certain averments are like personal necessity or availability of alternate accommodation the nature of the suit did not change. If the matters found by the Court irrelevant are near incidental, no issues be framed. The learned Distt. Judge has passed an order without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in converting the simple suit for possession into a suit to have been filed under Sec. 13 of the act.