SUMERMAL JAIN Vs. LAL MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendants have preferred this second appeal aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dtd. 21/8/2018 passed by Addl. District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'first appellate Court') dismissing their appeal against judgment and decree dtd. 9/5/2017, passed by Senior Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, for eviction and recovery of rent against appellant-defendants was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against appellant-defendants stating that the suit property Shop No.D-3, ad-measuring 10' x 18', situated in Tripolia Market of Jodhpur city was taken on rent @ Rs.600.00 per month by appellant-defendants. The respondent-plaintiff in the plaint claimed unpaid rent of Rs.21,600.00 from 1/1/2000. It is averred in the plaint that notice terminating the tenancy was given to the appellants but no reply to the same was given. The suit was essentially based on reasonable and bonafide necessity and default.

(3.) Written statement to the plaint was filed by the appellant- defendants refuting the averments of plaint. It is averred by appellants that the shop was taken on rent in the year 1976 @Rs.300.00 per month, which was later on increased to Rs.400.00 and lastly the rent was paid on 28/2/1998. It is further averred that thereafter rent tendered to the respondent-plaintiff was not accepted, therefore, rent amount was sent by money order as the bank account information asked for was not provided by the respondent-plaintiff. It is asserted by appellant-defendants, that the rent was subsequently deposited in the learned trial Court under Sec. 19A, as such, they are not defaulters.