GOVIND RAM Vs. DHANSUKH LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, who is a tenant in the suit premises, has been unsuccessful in both the courts below and has filed this appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated May 21, 1968.

(2.) It is not disputed that plaintiffs Dhansukhlal, Madanlal and Padamchand are the joint owners of the premises on the first floor of which the defendant is a tenant, Plaintiff Madanlal is living on second floor, while the ground floor is in the occupation of plaintiffs Dhansukhlal and Madanlal. It is also not in dispute that plaintiffs Madanlal and Padamchand, who are brothers, used to reside in the house of one Madanlal Chandak and whereas Madanlal shifted to the second floor of the building in which the suit premises are located, Padamchand continues to reside as a tenant of Madanlal Chandak. The plaintiffs therefore instituted the present suit for the eviction of the defendant, who is a tenant of all of them on the first floor as aforesaid, alleging that the premises were required for the reasonable and bona fide use of plaintiff Padamchand. They also pleaded that the defendant had committed defaults in the payment of rent, but nothing now turns on that plea.

(3.) The defendant took a number of defences in the written statement but for purposes of the controversy in this court it will be sufficient to say that he took the plea that the accommodation in occupation of the plaintiffs was sufficient for their residential requirements and that the plaintiffs had acquired vacant possession of three rooms and a small store room on the ground floor during the pendency of the suit which was sufficient to meet the requirement of plaintiff Padamchand.