LODHA, J -This is a defendant-tenants second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction from a shop. The tenancy is admitted.

2. The suit for eviction is based on two grounds, viz. (1) default on the part of the tenant in paying rent; and (2) reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the land-lord. Both the lower courts have accepted the plaintiffs version that the shop in question is required by the plaintiff for his son, who wishes to carry on business in that shop. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed this finding on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and there is a clear variance in pleading and proof. He has, therefore, contended that the finding of the learned District Judge on this point is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of personal necessity has further contended that the defendant had admittedly committed default in payment of rent and thereafter had not complied with sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be cal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document