1. - This is a defendants-appellant (hereinafter `the defendant) appeal under Section 100 CPC aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1993 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur as the lower appellate court inter alia directing the eviction of the defendant while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1984 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City Jaipur (the `trial court') dismissing respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter `the plaintiffs') suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on or about 1-5-1975 on grounds of default in payment of rent, bonafide and personal necessity and arrears of rent in respect of suit property described in the plaint. It was alleged that the suit land first belonged to one Sarjoo Behari Lal and was rented out to one Naseer Khan at the rate of Rs. 1/- per month. Naseer Khan had constructed a kham room on the suit property. The defendants were stated to have purchased the debris (malba) of the kham room from Naseer Khan and simultaneously rented the suit property from Sarjoo Behari Lal by way of rent note dated 16-7-1957 (Ex.1). The plaintiffs further averred that on or about 2-9-1974 they had purchased the disputed land as described in para No.1 of the plaint from Sarjoo Behari Lal by a registered sale deed and issued notice of attornment to the defendants on 5-11-1974. Copies of the postal receipt was marked as Ex.3 and notice as Ex.4. It was submitted that the suit property was bonafidely and reasonably required by the plaintiffs for the purpose of their business. It was submitted that the defendants had also not paid rent of the suit property since the attornment notice dated 5-11-1974, and therefore were also liable to be evicted on the aforesaid ground. Arrears of rent were also claimed for the period from 2-9-1974 to 25-3-1975.

3. On service of notice, the defendants filed their written statement of denial. The allegations in the plaint was denied and the assertion of the rent note dated 16-7-1957 having been executed by the defendants negated. It was stated that the defendants were residing in the suit property since the time of their forefathers and that the alleged erstwhile owner of the suit property Sarjoo Behari Lal as claimed in the suit had no right or interest in the suit property and consequently no right to sell it to the plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed or otherwise. Title by prescription with the defendants open continuous and unchallenged possession of the suit property partly since 1929-30 over the portion marked in red on the map annexed to the written statement and partly since June 30, 1957 of the portion marked in yellow on the map aforesaid was claimed. However, even while denying the plaintiffs ownership or their rights over the suit property as landlord, by way of abandoned caution, it was also denied that the plaintiffs had any bonafide and reasonable necessity for the suit property in issue and further that in the event the defendants were to be evicted they would suffer comparative hardship vis-a-vis plaintiffs.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed seven issues:

"1- vk;k izfroknhx.k us fooknxzLr [kke ?kj dh tehu fnukad 16-7-1975 dks :i;s 1 ekgokj ij Jh ljtw fcgkjh yky ls fdjk;s ij ysdj fdjk;kukek rgjhj o rdehy djk fn;k\ 2- vk;k ljtq fcgkjh yky us fooknxzLr tehu fnukad 2-9-1974 dks oknhx.k dks fodz; djh vkSj mls fodz; djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k Fkk\ 3- ;fn rudh ua0 1 o 2 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa fl) gks rks D;k izfroknhx.k us vnk;xh fdjk;s esa fMQkWYV ugha fd;k\ 4- vk;k oknhx.k dks fooknxzLr tehu dh futh ,oa okLrfod vko';drk gS\ 5- vk;k oknxzLr dks tehu [kkyh u gksus ls oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ds eqdkcys esa vf/kd gkMZf'ki gksrh gS\ 6- vk;k oknksRrj ds layXu uD'kksa esa nf'kZr yky ,oa ihys jax dh Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k dk dCtk eq[kkYQkuk gks x;k ,oa ;fn ,slk gS rks nkos ij bldk D;k vlj