The landlord's bona fide need to occupy the suit premises for his own occupation and that of his family is a sufficient ground for eviction under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and it is not necessary to also plead the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 13 (1) (k) of the Act.

ARUN MADAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been preferred before this Court by the defendant-appellant who is a tenant in the suit property, situated at Ramlila Nohara Marg, Lalan Gali, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar, bearing Municipal No. 6/335 (old) block No. 1, new Municipal No. 5 which was earlier in the joint ownership of Ghadisiram alias Ghanshyam Dass Agrawal and Ramlal son of Gadhsiram residents of Jaipur and the said property was constructed in 5 blocks, one out of which is in ownership of present respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1996 passed in first appeal No. 58/88 by Addl. District Judge, Beawar against the judgment and decree dated 24-5-1988 passed by Munsiff, Beawar in civil suit No. 46/82 whereby the said appellate court had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent on 21-1-1979 by a registered sale deed and in the meanwhile the appellant who was already inducted as a tenant by the earstwhile owner of the said property continued as a tenant in the aforesaid room and continued his tenancy by attornment by the second owner. i. e. the respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant from the suit premises in question was filed by respondent-landlord on 24-2-1982 on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity of the owner landlord under Sections 13 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (for short "the Act of 1950" ). On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues :-1. Whether the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for the period 23-1-1979 till the date of filing of the suit, i. e. , 24-2-1982 and if so to what effect ?2. Whether the need of the plaintiff to occupy the suit premises is bona fide and genuine for his own occupation and that of his family and if so whose comparative hardship will be greater ?3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 5 years reckoned w. e. f. 2-1-1978, i. e. the date when the appellant had gained entry in the suit premises on his induction as a tenant by the erstwhile owner as per Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1950?4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

( 3 ) THE appellant-tenant contested the suit by filing his written statement before the trial Court on the grounds inter alia that (a) all the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord for the period in dispute stood fully paid and that he had deposited in the court the rental dues up to 31-10-1983. He had further stated that he had already been given the benefit of first default as contemplated by the provisions of Section 19a of the Act of 1950 (b) with regard to the plea of bona fide requirement of the suit premises of the landlord, it was contended by the appellant before the trial Court that he had no requirement to occupy the suit premises. He had stated that the appellant was in Government service as Executive Engineer posted at Bikaner and because of his said posting he was entitled to allotment of official accommodation and for this reason he had no bona fide requirement or necessity to occupy the suit premises at Beawar.

( 4 ) THE defendant-appellant however, had disputed this fact that the plaintiff s wife was not living at Beawar though in his evidence before the trial Court he had admitted this fact that his wife and daughter were living at Beawar. They keep on coming to Beawar and staying in their ancestral house. He has further stated that there is enough accommodation in the disputed premises with lot of open land and the roofs are lying vacant where the plaintiff can raise modern construction according to his requirement. Besides this in the neighbourhood in Sarafan Mohalla the plaintiff and his father have very large property and th