SATYA NARAIN Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been preferred by the defendant appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20-8-1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Beawar in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7/1994 whereby he had reversed the findings recorded by the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Beawar in Civil Suit No. 50/1982 by dismissing the plaintiff's suit on 23-2-1994 on the ground of personal bona fide necessity.

(2.) The defendant appellant was a tenant in the suit premises situated at Ramleela Nohra Marg, Lalan Gali, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar, bearing Municipal No. 6/335 (old) Block No. 1 new Municipal No. 5 which was earlier in the joint ownership of Gaddi Sriram alias Ghan Shyam Dass Agrawal and Ramlal son of Ghadisiram, resident of Jaipur and the said property was constructed in five blocks, one out of which is in the ownership of the present respondent who is the owner/landlord of the suit premises which is under the tenancy of the defendant-appellant. The suit property was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 21-1-1979 by the respondent and consequent upon its purchase attornment notice was also duly given and served on the defendant appellant as the lawful tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. Admittedly the suit property is more than 90-95 years old and which fact has also been admitted by the defendant as DW 1.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this second appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction was filed against the defendant-appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the respondent-landlord to occupy the premises in question under Section 13(1)(a) and (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act"). The defendant-appellant controverted the aforesaid grounds by contending in his written statement filed before the trial Court on the ground inter alia that the rent for the period up to Mahadhi 12 Samvat 2035 had been paid to the previous landlord of the suit premises and the rent for the subsequent period was tendered by him to the previous landlord several times and on account of his refusal to accept the same, it was sent by money order which too was not accepted and, thereafter, it was deposited in the Court in accordance with Section 19-A of the Act and thus the defendant-appellant had not committed any default in payment of rent and in fact he had already paid the rent up to Bhadwa Budi 12 Samvat 2040; and since the predecessor of the plaintiff did not accept the rent with some ulterior motive he remained in arrears on account of their conduct. With regard to the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the suit premises, this ground was refuted for the reasons that the plaintiff and his family members had been purchasing lands and property at cheaper rates and thereafter selling them to prospective purchasers at high profits and it had become their profession and trade. It was further stated that since the plaintiff/respondent as well as his family members did not live at Beawar and since the plaintiff is serving as an Engineer in Public Works Department of the State Government for last several years and was last posted at Bikaner prior to his posting at Jaipur and Ajmer etc. he was not in any bona fide need to occupy the suit premises. Thus for the last several years he has been permanently residing outside Beawar with his family and hence there was no bona fide requirement of the suit premises since he had been residing in official accommodations allotted to him at the station of his posting; besides lot of residential accommodation is available in the suit property and is still lying vacant and available for occupation by the plaintiff and if the plaintiff desires he can live there with all comforts. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-