The court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant based on the default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, as provided under the Rent Act.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - The appellant-defendant-tenant (hereafter 'the tenant') have preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 20-9-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur in first appeal No. 62/1997 allowing appeal reversed the judgment dated 13-2-1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bharatpur in civil suit No. 76/1991 and decreed the suit for eviction of tenant from shop in question and fixed the mesne profits Rs. 140/- per month.

2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent-plaintiff-landlord (hereafter 'the landlord') filed a suit on 31-5-1988 for eviction of tenant stating therein that shop in question was in tenancy of the tenant defendant No. 1 Brijendra Singh @ Bijjo from the time of erstwhile landlord Ganpat Singh on a rent of Rs. 140/- per month, which was purchased by landlord through registered sale deed dated 10-12-1986 of which information was given to tenant 24-1-1987. It was pleaded that the tenant did not pay rent from 1-12-1986 as such he committed default in payment of rent. It was pleaded that the shop in question was bonafidely needed for his son Laxmi Narayan for Kirana-shop as he was jobless. It was stated that notice dated 3-12-1987 was given to tenant mentioning therein the issue of default and bona fide need of shop for plaintiff's son. The notice was received by the tenant on 4-12-1987. It was further pleaded that after receipt of notice the defendant No. 1 sublet the shop to defendant No. 2 and deposited the rent in court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. As the defendant No. 1 denied to admit the plaintiff as landlord therefore he is liable to be evicted from the shop. Rs. 2380/- for rent of 17 months was claimed to be recovered.

3. On service of notice, the defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied the facts mentioned in plaint. It was stated that the property shown in the ownership of Vimla Devi, Sheela Devi and Vijay Singh, all properties belonged to plaintiff and these persons were family members of plaintiff and they are residing together. The shop in western side, house in northern side, three shops and hall on their roof were vacant and in possession of plaintiff. The hall was got vacated from Amarchand Jain after filing the suit. It was pleaded that alleged sale-deed was to be proved by plaintiff. Receipt of notice dated 24-1-1987 was denied. The allegation of default was denied and submitted that rent was sent to erstwhile landlord Ganpat Singh through Money Order, who did not receive the Money Order, but he did not tell about sell of shop in question. The plaintiff also did not raise demand for the rent after 24-1-1987. On receipt of notice dated 3-12-1987 the plaintiff sent the due rent through Money Order to plaintiff, but he refused therefore the defendant No. 1 deposit the rent in court under Section 19A of the Rent Act. The defendant No. 1 was always ready and willing to pay the rent but he did not receive malafidely just to prove the defendant No. 1 to be defaulter. It was pleaded that plaintiff's son Laxmi Narayan was not jobless, nor he was having any experience of kirana-shop. However, plaintiff has other vacant shop in his possession. After the notice dated 3-12-1987 the plaintiff demand to increase the rent as Rs. 300/-, to which the defendant No. 1 denied therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit alleging him to be defaulter. Alleged sub-tenant Bali Chand was servant of defendant No. 1 as the tenant was doing business in shop in question of tea-restaurant, ice and beetle sell for last fifteen years.

4. Defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement and denied the facts of plaint and stated that suit was wrongly filed just to harass defendants. As defendant No. 2 was wrongly impleaded in suit he claimed compensation of Rs. 1000/-.

5. On basis of pleadings of parties, eight issues were framed. Subsequently Issue No. 5 and 6 we