JUDGMENT :

1. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No.27/2010, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.81/2009 has been affirmed. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction and arrears of rent.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

(i) On 04.07.1994, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against defendant-appellant. It was averred in the plaint that plot Nos.6 and 7 of Adarsh Colony, Bikaner were in the ownership of Smt. Sunita and Late Smt. Vandana on which they had constructed their respective houses. After the death of Smt. Vandana, the said plot was in ownership and possession of plaintiff Ghewar Chand who gave it on rent to the defendant @ Rs.1000/-per month for opening a crèche. Defendant deposited the rent in the bank account of plaintiff till May 1993 but thereafter defaulted in payment of 13 months’ rent i.e., Rs.13,000. Further, she constructed a wall in the garage blocking the main gate; demolished the wall in between the said house and the adjacent house of Smt. Sunita and constructed a chabutra therein and started running a school in the premises instead of opening a crèche. It was further averred that the plaintiff was in bonafide need of the premise for residence of his family which could not be fulfilled by partial eviction of the premise and that the appellant could shift to some other premise for running her school. Hence, the present suit was filed with a prayer for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

(ii) The defendant, vide her written statement, denied the averments made in the plaint and submitted that in the year 1989 when she was in search of a property to be purchased for running school, the plaintiff, who was in illegal possession of the land of Urban Improvement Trust, rented out the premises to her, posing himself to be the landlord. Subsequently, construction over the land in question was demolished by the UIT and at that point of time, plaintiff and his agent Baggaram offered to sell debris (tamirat malba) over the land to appellant for Rs.45,000/-. Since appellant could not pay the said amount in lumpsum, it was agreed to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.1,000/- per month. An oral agreement, on the above terms, was entered into and possession was transferred to the defendant. It was also averred in the written statement that she deposited first three instalments through cash and thereafter via cheque. After full and final payment, plaintiff no longer remained to be the landlord of the premises. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.05.1993, UIT allotted the said land to her for running a school and rejected the application preferred by the plaintiff for regularization of possession over the land. However, a writ petition SB Civil Writ Petition No.2534/93 was preferred by plaintiff Ghewar Chand and Baggaram against the order dated 02.05.1993 wherein an interim order was passed and hence no final proceedings could be executed by the UIT.

3. On basis of the pleadings as made, the learned trial Court framed the following 8 issues in the matter:

1- vk;k izfrokfn;k us ebZ&1993 ds ckn dk fdjk;k vnk ugha dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa fof/kd O;frØe fd;k gS\

2- vk;k izfroknh us okn&i= ds iSjk la- 6¼2½ esa mYysf[kr rjhds ¼jhfr½ ls oknxzLr ifjlj esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu fd;k gS\

3- vk;k izfroknh us f'k'kqx`g ds LFkku ij ifjlj esa fo|ky; 'kq: dj fn;k gS\

4- vk;k oknxzLr ifjlj dh oknh dks Lo; ds fy, o Loa; ds ifjokj ds fy, mfpr ,oa l)koukiw.kZ vko';drk gS\

5- vk;k rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk fcUnq oknh ds i{k es gS\

6- vk;k ifjlj dh vkaf'kd fjfDr laHko ugha gS\

7- vk;k oknh o izfrokfn;k ds e/; edku ekfyd fdjk;snkj ds laca/k gS\

8- vuqrks"k\

Vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010, the learned trial Court decreed t