The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation by the tenants and the nature of the rented premise as residential were key factors in the court's decision to uphold the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act of 1950.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants-defendants-tenants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2002 passed in Civil First Appeal No.32/1999 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated 02.09.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.518/1976 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby and whereunder the civil suit for rent and eviction filed by respondent-plaintiff-temple Shri Krishan Bihari Nadirji Virajman, has been decreed on merits.

2. This second appeal is required to be considered on the substantial questions of law formulated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2006 which, read as under:-’(I)Whether when the tenancy was composite for residence and for commercial purpose then a decree of eviction can be passed on the ground contained under Section 13(1)(J) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950?’

"(II)Whether purchase of a house by one of the tenant can be a ground for eviction of two tenants and the decree of eviction passed by the courts below are vitiated?"

3. In order to appreciate both substantial questions of fact, it is necessary to re-capitulate the facts of case arising out of the pleadings and material available on record which are as under:-

4. Respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for eviction way back on 26.08.1976 under the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ’the Act of 1950’). The tenancy of appellants-defendants in the premise in question was alleged on the basis of rent note dated 01.04.1961, at the rate of Rs.40/- per month though the defendants claim their tenancy since prior to 1938. Plaintiffs came out with a specific case that the rented premise was let out for residential purpose and wherein defendants started to run commercial activities as they installed kuti machine and ara machine in the rented premise nohra of temple. The rented premise is situated nearby the temple and the nature of rented premise is residential which is mentioned in the plaint as under:-

^^ukSgjk okds 'kgj t;iqj okSdMh iqjkuh cLrh lMd uknj x< okSjkgk ckgj ekbZ;ku eafnj uknj th ds ihNs if'pe ns[krk gqvk gS mlds dsoy van:uh edkukr eafty igyh esa gh o okSd o rgkjo ds gdwdw bLosxkfyA^^

5. Apart from other grounds of default, sub-letting, material alteration and nuisance, plaintiffs sought amendment in the plaint and in the amended plaint in Para No.9(d), specifically pleaded that defendant-tenant has acquired alternative and suitable premise as the defendant Abdul Rajjak and his successor Joje Munnu have purchased one double storied building bearing municipal No.964 at Chowkri Topkhana, Hajoori Rasta, Khurha Luharan, Macchiwalon ka Mohalla, Jaipur through registered sale deed dated 04.07.1967 and has got possession of the said premise. Plaintiffs prayed to grant the decree for eviction on various grounds including one of the additional grounds of default, sub-letting, nuisance and material alteration that tenants have acquired alternative suitable accommodation, hence they are entitled to evict defendants-tenants. It may be noticed that such additional ground of eviction is available under Section 13 of the Act of 1950, which reads as under:

"Section 13(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree; or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied-

(i)that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence."

6. Appellants-defendants submitted written statements and admitted their tenancy in the rented premise though denied the rent note dated 01.04.1961 and claimed their tenancy prior to that