AMNA BAI Vs. MAHAVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated August 10, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for ejectment against the defendant-appellant. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON December 20, 1979, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & mesne profits and ejectment of the defendant-apell-ant with the allegations, in short, as follows. After practising for fifteen years in the High Court as an Advocate, he joined the University of Jodhpur in August, 1963 as a Professor. ON the request of the defendant, the front portion of his office (verandah) was let out to her on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- w. e. f. June 1, 1974 with a clear understanding that it would be vacated as soon as it was required. His son Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot has passed LL. B. in the year, 1979, he has been enrolled as an Advocate and has started his practice. Accommodation for the office is urgently and genuinely needed. In the rear portion of the office, his daughter-in-law Smt. Bhagwati, M A. has fitted her knitting machine after taking loan from the Bank. The dimensions of the existing office are 10' x 16' only. It has only one door through the lane, it also does not have any window of ventilator for light & air. It is inadequate and insufficient for the purpose of an office of an Advocate. The plaintiff will also resume his practice after his retirement from the University in February, 1980. The defendant carries on the business of selling small pieces of cloth on a petty scale in the demised premises. Her husband is in the service of the Railway and three sons have good earnings. She is not vacating the demised premises with an ulterior motive despite service of the notice.

(3.) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 seriously erred in rejecting the defendant's application moved under Order 6 Rule 17, C. P. C. dated 1. 8. 88 and another application moved under Order 26 Rule 9, C. P. C dated 3. 9. 88 to incorporate the averments in her written statement to the effect that other two shops belonging to the plaintiff fell vacant during, the pendency of the appeal, they were converted into a big hall by removing intervening wall and the plaintiff could very well shift his office in it. In reply to these applications, the plaintiff admitted that two shops fell vacant, they were converted into a hall by removing the intervening well and the latter was subsequently let out. The case of the plaintiff is for an additional accommodation which is just annexed to his existing office to make it a proper office as it existed earlier when the demised premises was carved out therefrom and let out in the year, 1974. IT is not the plaintiff's case that a new office is to be opened. If the plaintiff would have based his need of the suit premises for opening a new office for his son as well as for himself, the availability of the said two shops subsequently converted into a hall would have had a great material bearing in the case. This is not so in this case. The demised premises is required by the plaintiff for the various purposes in connection with his existing office. Firstly, for the passage, light & air. Secondly, for the sitting of the Clerk (Munshi) & clients. Thirdly, for furniture & growing library Fourthly, to make the office visible from the main road. The condition No. 7 of the rent note runs as under: