LAWS(RAJ)-1999-12-15

HARDEV Vs. JAIDEV

Decided On December 02, 1999
HARDEV Appellant
V/S
JAIDEV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-defendant-appellant has filed the present second appeal against the judgement and decree dated 28-1-1986 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.4, Jodhpur whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 8-9-1982 passed by Additional Munsiff Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises in dispute to his mother and his brother's wife within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-sec.(1) of S.13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No.17 of 1950).

(2.) For effective disposal of the present appeal I consider it expedient to refer certain factual aspects of the matter in brief which are borne out from perusal of the record.

(3.) The landlord-plaintiff-respondent Shri Jaidev instituted the suit against the tenant defendant-appellant on 6-9-1976 alleging that he is the owner of plot No.569 situated at11 'C' Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur which he gave on rent to tenant defendant-appellant Shri Hardev for carrying on business of coal and wood Tal at the monthly rent of Rs.25/-. The terms of the tenancy have been agreed as given on the back of the rent receipt. it is alleged in the plaint that the tenant-defendant-appellant, after closing his business of coal and wood Tal has given the premises to his mother and his brother's wife, who are carrying on business of coal and wood Tal. Thus the tenant-defendant-appellant has parted with the possession of the premises in question. It is averred in the plaint that after closing his business of coal and wood Tal, the tenant-defendant-appellant is carrying on another business of scooter repairs under the name and style of M/s Kishore Auto Repairs at 12th 'B' Road, Sardarpura, Jodhapur. In view of the fact that the tenant defendant-appellant has now started another business of scooter repairs it is alleged in the plaint that the premises in question is not required by him for his business of coal and wood Tal.