The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.

Judgment

1. Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, assailing the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2011 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal No.22/2007 by Additional District Judge No.3, Kota, affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 26.3.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.489/1987 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Kota whereby suit for rent and eviction has been decreed against defendant and in favour of plaintiffs.

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments on record.

3. Rented premise is one room situated in House No.199, Dadwada, Bheemganj Mandi, Kota which is in tenancy of appellant-defendant at the rate of Rs.16/- per month and in respect of which a decree for eviction has been passed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity under the provision of Section 13(1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rent Act").

4. The relevant facts, in brief are that respondents-plaintiffs instituted civil suit for eviction on 18.07.1987, stating inter alia that they have purchased entire House No.199 at Dadwada, Bheemganj Mandi, Kota through registered sale deed dated 25.10.1986 from its erstwhile owner Sh. Mukut Bihari and defendant was his tenant in one room at ground floor at the rate of Rs.16/- per month. It was stated that after purchasing the house with tenanted room, which is in possession of defendant, defendant has not paid the rent and further the room is required for residence of the family of plaintiff No.2 Akil Ahmed who carried on work of cycle repairing in the shop nearby situated.

5. Defendant submitted his written statement and stated that he was tenant in two rooms at ground floor and not one room but plaintiffs have indicated only one room in tenancy of defendant in the sale deed dated 25.10.1986 and such mention suffer from interpolation. He submitted that after purchase of house, plaintiffs broke out locks of his one room and took possession of that room forcibly, therefore, he lodged an FIR and thereafter, instituted a civil suit for restoration of possession in respect of that one room. His suit No.250/1987 was decreed vide judgment dated 30.11.2000 and appeal thereagainst was dismissed on 18.5.2005 and further both judgments were affirmed in second appeal No.343/2005 vide order dated 12.5.2008. Defendant denied the ground of default and bonafide necessity and contended that eviction suit in respect of part of rented premises is not maintainable and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned trial Court framed issues. Apart from issues of default, bonafide necessity, hardship and partial eviction etc. specific issue No.9A and 9B were framed to the effect as to whether the defendant was tenant in two rooms with front Verandha, Chowk, Latrine and Bathroom and as to whether plaintiffs dispossess the defendant from one room after breaking his locks?

7. Both parties adduced their respective evidence and the trial Court, vide judgment dated 26.3.2007 decided issue No.9A and 9B against defendant and observed that defendant was tenant only in one room and it is not proved that plaintiffs dispossessed the defendant from another room after breaking locks. The issue of default was decided against plaintiffs but the issue of bonafide and reasonable necessity was decided in favour of plaintiffs and accordingly suit for eviction was decreed along with rent at the rate of Rs.16/- per month for use and occupation.

8. The defendant preferred first appeal, assailing the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 26.3.2007. The first Appellate Court re-considered and re-heard the entire evidence and affirmed fact findings of the trial Court as also decree for eviction and dismissed the first appeal vide judgment dated 15.9.2011.

9. Against concurrent findings of fact on the issue of bonafide and reasonable necessity, this second ap