DULAHNOMAL Vs. DHANSUKHLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an anneal by the defendant against the appellate judgment and decree of Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated Aug. 12, 1968.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop which belongs to the three plaintiffs-respondents and has been let out to the defendant. They raised the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by plaintiff Dhansukhlal for the use and occupation of his son who is at present carrying on his business in a rented shop. Eviction was also sought on the other ground that there were defaults in the payment of rent, but it is agreed that that point has been decided in favour of the defendant and does not require reconsideration. The defendant admitted the tenancy but denied the claim for eviction. The trial court framed five issues and while it decreed the suit for arrears of rent, it dismissed it so far as the prayer for eviction of the defendant was concerned. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the court below and as it has been allowed by the impugned Judgment and the defendant has been ordered to be evicted, he has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defendant appellant that the learned Judge of the lower appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that Rikhab Chand, son of Plaintiff Dhansukhlal, for whose use the suit shop was required to be vacated by the defendant, was a separated son and that he was not therefore a member of the plaintiff Dhansukhlal's family within the meaning of section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.