PRAKASH GUPTA, J.

1. Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') whereby the learned first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants.

2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal can be briefly summarized as thus: The respondent No.1 plaintiff Janki Devi (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed property against the defendant No.1 appellant Nand Kishore (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No.1'), on 15.01.1975. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that the defendant No.1, who had taken the said property on rent from the plaintiff on 04.12.1971 at a monthly rent of Rupees 300, had defaulted in the payment of rent right from the inception and that the plaintiff required the said property to fulfill her bona fide and reasonable needs. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had sub-let the said property without the prior permission of the plaintiff and had also done material alterations to the suit property without seeking the permission of the plaintiff.

The defendant No.1 filed his written-statement, denying all the averments made in the plaint.

3. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as eight issues.

While adjudicating the case finally, the learned trial court decided issues No.1, 3, 7A and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002 passed by the learned trial court, defendant No.1 preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of the civil Procedure Code, 1908. The said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.07.2003. Hence, this second appeal.

4. This court, while admitting the second appeal preferred by the appellant-tenant framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether in view of the subsequent event i.e. after demise of the plaintiff Smt. Janki Devi on 16.03.2003 the ground of bonafide personal necessity does not exist and suit deserves to be dismissed ?

(ii) Whether the finding of courts below is perverse on bonafide necessity of the plaintiff respondent the courts below and were correct in decreeing the suit ?

(iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are contrary to the rent note and agreement between the parties and the suit was maintainable within seven years in spite of the fact that the defendant appellant was entitled to repurchase the premises within seven years of sale to the plaintiff and suit was filed for repurchase of the houses and appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court ?

(iv) Whether the finding of the court below was correct contrary to the evidence on record that the property was purchased by the plaintiff for her need after retirement without appreciating the agreements which were executed along with the sale deed and appellant had right repurchase. The plaintiff had also no knowledge about the execution of the sale deed and other documents and rent note which shows that the property was purchases benami by her son who was Executive Engineer ?

5. Before deciding the appeal on merits, application bearing No.22748/2015 filed by the contesting respondents is being decided. The said application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for decreeing the suit on the ground of default, denying the benefit of first default to the appellants under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950').

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of this appeal, the