MIRCHUMAL AND ORS. Vs. KAUSALYA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dtd. 23/2/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in civil regular appeal No.222/2009 (119/1998) whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants and confirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 29/5/1998 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, South, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.30/90.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Kausalya Devi (since deceased) wherein it is stated that the disputed shop comprising three 'Khand', was let out to the defendant. The appellant made default in payment of the rent. Additionally, the plaintiff is in bona fide need of the disputed shop for expanding her husband's and sons's business. It is further contended that the plaintiff has no other alternate vacant premises to store the whole-sale goods of the business of her husband and son. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff would suffer greater comparative hardship if the disputed shop is not vacated. The ground of subletting was also taken in the plaint. It was prayed that the suit be decreed on the aforesaid grounds of eviction.

(3.) The defendant-appellant Mirchumal (since deceased) resisted the suit by filing a written statement wherein he admitted the tenancy. However, it was stated that the terrace as well as the Chabutra outside the shop in dispute also fall within 'tenanted premises' of the defendant. It was averred that the defendant had offered to pay the rent but the same was refused by the plaintiff and in view of this, the defendant deposited the rent on regular basis in the Court. Plaintiff had renovated the adjoining shop in her possession according to her needs and requirements and therefore, her requirement was satisfied. Hence, the question of hardship does not arise. It was averred that the disputed shop is the only source of livelihood of the defendant's family. It was prayed that the suit be accodingly dismissed.