ORDER :

1. The appeal under section 96 CPC filed by the appellants/defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Dausa, Rajasthan in Civil Suit No. 20/2001 (47/2008) whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') for eviction and recovery of rent has been decreed.

2. Brief facts of the appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendants alleging that on 01.06.1993 defendant No. 1 took the disputed shop on rent from plaintiff for five years, rent of which was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month. Defendant No. 1 did not vacate the suit shop on 01.06.1998. Thus, rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month. The said rent was paid till May 1999. After that, the defendant No. 1 promised to vacate the disputed suit property till the year 2000 but after May 1999, he did not pay the rent and sublet the disputed shop to the defendant No. 2 in May 1999. Plaintiff required the suit property for bona fide necessity of his son.

3. After service of summons, defendants did not appear before the trial court and trial court decreed the suit ex-parte against them on 07.03.2003. Defendants separately filed an applications for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The trial court set aside the ex-parte decree against the defendant No. 2 but dismissed the application of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed a review application. The said application was also dismissed. After that, defendant No. 1 filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5501/2010 titled Suresh v. Govindnarayan. The said petition was also dismissed. Defendant No. 1 also filed a Civil Misc. Appeal but said appeal was also dismissed. The ex-parte decree passed against him attained finality.

4. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement and counter claim and stated that defendant No. 2 took the disputed shop on rent of Rs.1000/- per month from plaintiff by oral agreement dated 01.05.1992. Defendant No. 1 never took the dispute shop on rent from the plaintiff. So, no occasion arose for subletting the suit shop: The defendant No. 2 also stated that plaintiff had taken Rs.30,000/- but he had not returned the said money. The said money was to be adjusted in rent. Defendant No. 2 also mentioned in written statement, there is no bona fide necessity of the disputed shop for the plaintiff's son. So, suit be dismissed.

5. Trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:

(i) Whether as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint, disputed shop measuring 8 x 7 ft. which was taken on rent by defendant No. 1 on 01.06.1993 had been subletted to defendant No. 2 Hanuman Sahai in 1999 without permission of the plaintiff in which the defendant No. 2 is doing business?

(ii) Whether defendant No. 2 Hanuman Sahai has taken the disputed shop on rent at Rs.1000/- per month by oral agreement from plaintiff on 01.05.1992 and since then, the defendant No. 2 is doing business in disputed shop as a tenant?

(iii) Whether plaintiff had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from defendant No. 2 Hanuman on 01.05.1992 and Rs.10,000/- before Ganesh Chaturthi in the year 1999 of which the defendant No. 2 is entitled for adjustment in the rent?

(iv) Whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to fix standard rent of disputed shop at Rs.150/- per month under Section 6 on the basis of written statement in counter claim?

(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-?

(vi) Whether the suit property is reasonably and bonafidely required