2013 Supreme(Raj) 1061
P.K.LOHRA
Mohd. Usman (D) Thro’ His LR’sAnr – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Uma Khanna – Respondent
Advocates:
For the Appellant:M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ribhu Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D.D. Patodiya, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appealed by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, 'the learned trial Court'), the petitioners have laid the instant revision petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'). The learned trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that the petitioner (landlord) instituted a suit for eviction against the non-petitioner (defendant) on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and default in payment of arrears of rent. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.3.2002. While granting the decree for eviction, the learned trial Court found that the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the petitioner is genuine, and therefore, he is entitled for a decree of eviction. So far as the ground of default is concerned, the learned trial Court has extended the benefit of first default to the non-petitioner (defendant).
3. Being agg
Click Here to Read the rest of this document