MEHMOOD Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sirohi dated 28th March, 1989, dismissing the appeal of the defendant-appellant against the judgment of the learned Munsif, Abu Road, decreeing the suit for ejectment. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarized thus :-

(2.) ON October 1, 1973, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-appellant on the ground of default and reasonable and bonafide necessity with the allegations, in short, that the premises and the adjoining portion situated at Abu Road (of a building) have been purchased by her through a registered sale-deed from the previous owner Smt. Chandrakala, for the residence of her family. She is presently residing with her father-in-law in a small out-house of the Palace Hotel, Abu Road and it is not possible to continue to live in it. The defendant filed his written statement, seriously contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment dated April 26, 1975. The defendant preferred an appeal. It was allowed and the suit was remanded to incorporate necessary averments regarding comparative hardship and partial eviction as required under Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi by his judgment dated January 27, 1977. Second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against this judgment and it was dismissed by this Court on August 21, 1980. The plaintiff amended her plaint. The defendant filed his supplementary written-statement. Additional issues on comparative hardship and partial eviction were framed. The parties pronounced their additional evidence. After hearing them, the suit was again decreed by the learned Munsif by his judgment dated October 3, 1983, holding that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff for the residence of her family, she would suffer greater hardship if the suit for ejectment is not decreed and there is no question of partial eviction. The defendant preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned District Judge by his judgment dated March 28, 1989, which has been challenged in thus second appeal.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge has seriously erred to hold beyond the pleadings that the portion of the house purchased by the plaintiff and vacated by Ramjan is in dilapidated condition and it cannot thus be occupied. He urged that no amount of evidence can be looked upon a plea which has not been put forward. He relied upon AIR 1953 SC 235, AIR 1987 SC 2179 and 1986(3) J.S. 371 (Raj.). It may be mentioned here that in the cross-examination dated March 22, 1983, the plaintiff's husband. Chouga Singh, PW.1 disclosed that this portion of the house is in a dilapidated condition. The amended plaint was filed on October 4, 1980. This portion became dilapidated after this date. It is well settled law that subsequent events may be taken into consideration.