DHARAM DAS Vs. HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed in both the courts below, the defendants who are tenants in the suit premises in Ajmer city, have filed this second appeal because they feel aggrieved against the decree directing their eviction from the said premises.

(2.) THE plaintiff raised his suit on the grounds that the defendants, who were his tenants, had committed more than three defaults in the payment of the rent and he required the premises for his reasonable and bonafide use and occupation. He therefore prayed for a decree for arrears of rent as well as eviction of the defendants. THE defendants resisted the claim. THEy pleaded that it had been agreed between the parties that they could carry out repairs in the suit premises and that they were therefore entitled to an adjustment of Rs. 199/3/6 on that account. THE plaintiff's requirement for the premises was also challenged and it was pleaded that the notice of ejectment was invalid. THE trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving his reasonable and bonafide requirement for the suit premises but it did not accept the contention that the defendants had committed such defaults in the payment of the rent as would justify their eviction on that ground. THE defence that a sum of Rs. 199/3/6 should be adjusted on account of repairs of the premises was, however, rejected. As the plea regarding the invalidity of the notice was not raised at the bar, the trial court decreed the suit on May 4,1965. THE defendants preferred an appeal and the Additional Civil Judge made an order on August 31, 1965. Framing an additional issue on the question whether the plaintiff was debarred from evicting the defendants on the ground of his personal requirement for the suit premises because he was a "mutwalli" and a beneficiary under the waqf deed dated August 12, 1945. THE trial court was directed to take evidence on the additional issue and the case was thereafter heard and decided under the impugned judgment of the Additional Civil Judge of Ajmer, dated May 20, 1966 against which the present appeal has been preferred. It may be mentioned that the learned Judge of the lower appellate court rejected the contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to evict the defendants simply because he was the "mut-walli" and the beneficiary of the the suit premises instead of being the owner thereof.