MODI, J.—This is a defendant tenants second appeal in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against a judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge Kishangarh dated the 17th November, 1961.

2. The facts in so far as they are material for the purposes of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. It is admitted that the defendant was a tenant of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff Mst. Mohani Bai and became her tenant by operation of law with respect to the suit premises after these had been purchased by her. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant was a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 4/8/- per mensem and that the latter had defaulted in the payment of rent from the 26th November, 1959, to the 25th May, 1960, with the result that a sum of Rs| 27/- was due from him on that account. Her case further was that as the tenancy commented on the 1st of an English month, she had given a notice to the defendant on the 2nd April, 1960, which had been served on him on the 7th April, 1960, and there by the defendant was asked to quit on the 30th April, 1960 or on any other date when the defendant thought his tenancy terminated. As the notice was of no avail, the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, in the court of the Munsiff Ajmer City for recovery of the arrears of rent as well as for eviction. Eviction was broght on three grounds : (1) that the defendant had defaulted in the payment of rent; (2.) that the plaintiff reasonably and bonafide required that suit premises for the use of herself and her family dependent on the plaintiffs husband and (3) that the defendant had caused image to the property. It may be stated at once that the plaintiff gave up the two grounds it default and damage and consequently the only question which is in controversy between the parties is whether she has succeeded in proving that the property was required by her reasonably and bonafide for the use of herself or her family as alleged by her. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs suit on all the grounds, and his case on the ground which now survives was that the plaintiff did not reasonably and bonafide require the suit premises for the use of herself or her family as alleged in the plaint The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit for eviction. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional Civil Judge Kishengarh allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant has now come up in second appeal to this Court.

3. Now the case of the plaintiff on the question of her bonafide and reasonable necessity for the occupation of the suit house was that the same was required for being occupied by the widow and children of one Lalchand and his mother in law, this Lalchand being a cousin of the plaintiffs husband Lilaram, and that the members of the family of Lalchand were dependent on Lilaram. When Lilaram came into the witness-box, he deposed that Lalchands widow was his Bhojai (brothers wife) and that he had left behind four children and that none of them was an earning member and he (Lilaram) was maintaining them. He further stated that Lalchands widow was living with her children in rented house. The evidence of two other witnesses of the plaintiff Kewalram and Lachhi-ram is also to the effect that Lalchands family was being maintained by Lilaram. It further clearly appears from the evidence of Kewalram that Lalchand was not a real brother of Lilaram but was his uncles son. Unfortunately the evidence on this aspect of the case is so meagre that it is not possible to say with any definiteness whether Lilaram and Lalchand were cousins in the first degree or were more distantly related. I shall, however, assume for the purposes of the appeal that the deceased Lalchand was a first cousin of the plaintiffs husband Lilaram, as that seems to have been the footing on which the learned Additional Civil Judge seems to halve proceeded.

4. The precise question which arises in these

Click Here to Read the rest of this document