The main legal point established is that under the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant based on grounds such as default, non-user of the rented premise, and acquiring alternative accommodation.

ORDER

1. The appellant-defendant has filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.222/2016 (54/2000), which has been affirmed in the First Appeal No.47/17 vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.10, Ajmer.

2. During the course of argument, this Court asked the counsel for appellant to seek instructions from the appellant to grant some reasonable time to vacate the rented premise, however the counsel for appellant declined to grant time and wanted to argue the matter on merits.

3. The rented premise comprising a room, kitchen, tin shed portion with open roof as described in the plaint, situated in House No.4317, third floor, Kundigar Bhairu ka Rasta, Chaukari Ghatgat, Jaipur.

4. As per the plaint, the defendant is tenant in the rented premise since 01.01.1983 at the rate of Rs.41/- per month. Though on the contrary, the defendant-tenant claims his tenancy from 1961 in the rented premise.

5. The relevant facts, as culled out from the record, are that respondent-plaintiff instituted civil suit for eviction on the ground of default, non user of the rented premise and acquired the alternative accommodation by the defendant-tenant invoking the provisions of Section 13(1) (a), (i) and (J) of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter referred ’the Act of 1950’).

6. The appellant-tenant submitted written statement and admitted himself to be tenant, however, raised objections about the authority of the plaintiff to institute the eviction suit and disputed the ground of default, non user and acquired alternative accommodation.

7. On rival pleadings of both parties, the trial court settled issues. The plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence. The defendant himself did not appear to make his statement and from the side of plaintiffs three witnesses got recorded their statements. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the trial court recorded finding that plaintiff has have right to institute the present civil suit for eviction. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not in dispute and as such the civil suit instituted by plaintiff was found well within his right.

8. It has been observed by the trial court that a private registered trust was created by Swami Laxmiram including the rented premises in the name of Swami Laxmiram Trust. In the trust deed reference of the rented premise was mentioned. Later on the Chief Trustee appointed the another trustee through his Will and by chain of document, finally the authorization was assigned to the plaintiff Swami Vaidh Ramprakash. It has also come on record that during the course of trial, the original plaintiff Swami Vaidh Ramprakash was passed away and through his Will his disciple Swami Bhajandas and now in turn the next disciple Swami Janakraj has been substituted. The trial court, on appreciation of such documentary evidence and statements of both parties, decided issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff holding that he is authorize to institute civil suit for eviction to evict the defendant-tenant.

9. The issue of default was also considered, as per the evidence available on record, the trial court provisionally determined the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. Defendant-tenant was found to pay the provisional rent during the course of trial. The trial court found that the defendant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent from 01.04.1998 onwards and till institution of the suit, which is more than six months. While declaring the defendant-tenant as defaulter, the trial court extended the benefit of first default since defendant-tenant complied with the order of provisional determination.

10. The other issues in relation to non user of rented premise and acquiring alternative accommodation to the defendant-tenant, it was observed by the trial court that defendant himself has not appeared in the witness box, which leads to an advers