1. 1. The defendant - tenant, Moti Ram Driver s/o Jeeraj Bhat, resident of Nohar has filed the present second appeal against the respondent - plaintiff - landlord, Mahesh s/o Kishanlal Jaju under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code in this Court on 08.02.1994 aggrieved by the judgment and eviction decree passed against him by the learned appellate court below of learned Additional District Judge, Nohar in Appeal No. 15/91 - Mahesh s/o Kishanlal v. Moti Ram Driver s/o Jesraj Bhat reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1991 by the learned trial court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Nohar dismissing the eviction Civil Original Suit No. 88/81 - Mahesh s/o Kishanlal Jajoo v. Moti Ram Driver s/o Jesraj Bhat.

2. While admitting the present second appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court on 22.02.1994 :

"Whether requirement pleaded by the plaintiff for the suit premises namely for making it available to the doctor employed at Jaju Charitable Trust for his residence can legally be construed as requirement for public purpose or philanthropic purpose by the landlord within the meaning of Section 13(1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 ?"

3. Despite service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff - landlord in the present second appeal and, therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant - defendant - tenant, Mr. S.G. Ojha were heard ex parte.

4. The learned appellate court below has given the eviction decree in respect of the suit premises - a small residential house situated in Nohar on the grounds of bonafide necessity of the landlord, which needed the suit premises for providing residential accommodation to the Doctor on duty, who was to serve in the Charitable Hospital, set up by the family Trust known as M/s. Jajoo Charitable Trust, Station Road, Nohar, where the medical aid was to be provided to the various patients.

5. The landlord set up the case that since Nohar is a small town and no suitable accommodation is available for providing accommodation to the Doctor to be employed by them for such Charitable Trust, they needed the suit house bonafide and reasonably for the purpose of their family trust and its charitable cause, which would fall under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950.

6. After taking the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit No. 88/81 - Mahesh v. Motiram filed by the plaintiff-landlord on 30.03.1981, however, the Appellate Court reversing the said decree, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff - landlord No. 15/91 - Mahesh v. Moti Ram Driver on 10.01.1994 and granted the eviction decree.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the defendant - tenant, Mr. S.G. Ojha, this Court finds that the bonafide need was properly established before the courts below by the plaintiff - landlord, namely, to provide the residential accommodation to the Doctor employed for lending services in the Charitable Hospital set up by the family members of the plaintiff's family known as M/s. Jajoo Charitable Trust and the same would squarely fall within the ambit and scope of Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950, which is reproduced below :

Section 13. Eviction of tenants :

(a) to (g) .......................

(h) that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord:-

(i) for the use of occupation of himself or his family; or

(ii) for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held; or

(iii) for a public purpose; or

(iv) for philanthropic use;

8. The setting up of the Charitable Hospital was undoubtedly a public purpose and a philanthropic activity to be carried on by the Charitable Trust set up by the plaintiff - landlord family and the bonafide need for providing the accommodation to the Doctor to be employed for the said purpose could not be said to be a whim or desire on the part of the