1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant-Kishan Lal S/o Ram Pal, who had filed an injunction suit against the landlord, for not to evict him without adopting the due process of law, being aggrieved by the judgment and eviction decree dated 14.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 12/1999 “Kishan Lal Vs. Shanker Lal & Ors.” by which, the learned First Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.01.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 45/1991 “Kishan Lal Vs. Shanker Lal & Ors.” by which, the learned Trial Court in view of decision of all the issues against the plaintiff, allowed the counter-claim of the defendants and directed eviction of the tenant, the plaintiff-appellant-Kishan Lal from the suit property in question, a house situated at Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

2. The plaintiff-Kishan Lal S/o Ram Pal has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the decrees given in favour of the defendants-landlords upon their counter-claim being decreed by the Courts below in respect of the suit property, a kuchcha keluposh house, situated at Gangapur, District Bhilwara which was originally let out by the defendants-Shanker Lal & Khem Raj, both sons of Dalchand Lakhara to the appellant-plaintiff-tenant-Kishan Lal S/o Ram Pal on 14.07.1987.

3. The plaintiff-tenant-Kishan Lal S/o Ram Pal filed the aforesaid suit, namely Civil Original Suit No.45/1991, for injunction with the prayer that he may not be dispossessed from the house in question with the respondents-landlord adopting the due process of law. In the meantime, the said house in question came to be transferred by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant No.3-Ramchandra S/o Magna Lakhara.

4. The said suit (No.45/1991) filed by the plaintiff-Kishan Lal initially came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court on 07.02.1994 but the learned Appellate Court of the Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara remanded the case back to the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 05.08.1994 for trying the counter-claim filed by the defendants-landlord but maintained the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the learned Trial Court.

5. After such remand, the learned Trial Court decreed the counter-claim of the defendants-landlord by the order dated 28.01.1999 with the following findings in favour of the defendants-landlord:-

^^19- geus bl lEcU/k esa mHk; i{k dh nyhyksa ij euu fd;kA oknh us ,d u;k okn fcUnq izfroknhx.k ds dkmUVj Dyse dh vkM esa mBk;k gSA tks vuqKs; ugha gSA oknh Lo;a ,d vfrdzeh dh rjg jg jgk gS] mls oknxzLr ifjlj esa jgus dk dksbZ vf/kdkjh ugha gS D;ksafd mldh fdjk;snkjh lkfcr ugha gSA vc lEifr dk D;k ewY; gS] D;k ugha] bl ckcr U;k;ky; dks fofu’p; djk gS ,oa U;k;ky; us fnukad 9-2-1996 dk tc 47]100@& :i;s izfroknhx.k dks dkmUVj Dyse ds fy;s dj ds :i esa r; dj nh gS rks fQj vc oknh mldks [kf.Mr djus ds fy;s lk{; is’k dj jgk gSA lk{kh bldh dher dqN Hkh crk ldrs gS] ijUrq U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj tks ekfy;r r; dh gS] mlh ds vuq:i izfroknhx.k U;k; ‘kqYd vnk djus ds fy, nk;h gSA egRoiw.kZ ckr rks ;g gS fd ;fn dksbZ vfrdzeh fdlh O;fDr dh tehu ij vfrdzeh ds :i esa dkfct gks tkrk gS ,oa ckn esa [kkyh djkus tkus ds fy;s ml HkwLokeh ls U;k; ‘kqYd dh ekax dh tkrh gS rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa fuf’pr :i ls ml HkwLokeh dks ,d vfrdzeh ds dkj.k gkfu ,oa uqdlku mBkuk iMs+xkA D;ksafd vfrdzeh u dsoy ml ifjlj dk fcuk fof/kd vf/kdkj ds mlesa jg jgk gS] vifrq mlds HkwLokeh dks [kkyh djkus ds fy;s nkok djuk iM+ jgk gSA ,oa lkFk gh lkFk ml lEifr dh ekfy;r ij U;k; ‘kqYd Hkh mlls ekaxk tk jgk gSA ;g ,d cM+h fofp= ifjfLFkfr gS ,oa U;k; ds mn~s’;ksa dh izkfIr ds fy;s ,slh izo`fr dks fuf’pr :i ls fu:Rlkfgr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s] vU;Fkk ln~Hkkfod HkwLokeh] vfrdzfe;ksa dh dkjxwtkfj;k¡ ds f’kdkj gks tk;saxsA mnkg