KAN SINGH, J.—This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a shop situated at Dargah Bazar, Ajmer and which bears No. A. M. C. VII/421. The shop was rented out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit shop for his bonafide personal necessity, as the plaintiffs son Gheesulal was to settled in business of fancy stores in that shop. The tenancy was determined by a notice dated 7-6-1967.

2. The defendant admitted the tenancy. He also admitted the receipt of the notice terminating the tenancy, but he disputed that the plaintiff had any bonafide need for the suit shop. He asserted that the plaintiff was desirous to increase the rent and has consequently filed the suit with this oblique motive.

3. The learned Munsif, Ajmer, before whom the suit was filed set down only one issue for trial about bonafide reasonable necessity of the plaintiff for the suit shop.

4. Both this parties led their evidence. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff had established the bonafide personal necessity for the suit shop and in consequence he decreed the suit for ejectment. He further directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25/- per month as mesne profits from the defendant till the delivery of possession. ,

5. I may pause here to say that the plaintiff closed his evidence on 17-10-68. On 7-1-69 the case was fixed for the defendants evidence, but on that date no witness was present and accordingly the case was adjourned to 11-3-69. On the last mentioned date the defendant examined himself and he produced two witnesses and then closed his evidence. The case was then adjourned to 18th April, 1969, for arguments. On 4-4-69 the defendant made an application under sec. 151, C.P.C. He stated therein that there were talks between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should increase the rent to Rs. 60/- per month and the plaintiff would then withdraw his suit. The parties then fixed up a second talk for the following day at 9 a.m. for finalising the matter. Expecting that the plaintiff would come to his shop, the defendant arranged for a tape recorder from one Shyam of Lakhan Kotri, Ajmer. As per plan the plaintiff visited the defendants shop at about 9 A. M. and then whatever talk had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant, was recorded on tape. It was also stated that one Dhallumal had also joined in the talk and his utterance too had gone on the tape. It was asserted in the application that it was clearly stated by the plaintiff that the rent of the shop be increased to Rs. 60/- a month. It was also averred that the plaintiff had also admitted that he had been increasing the rent of his another tenant Chanomal.

6. Accordingly it was prayed that an opportunity be afforded to the defendant to lead additional evidence of tape recording and the oral evidence regarding conversation that was taped. The application was supported by an affidavit of the defendant.

7. The plaintiff opposed the prayer for additional evidence. The plaintiff averred that the application was mala fide and the so called tape was manipulated, fabricated and was accordingly denied. It was further pleaded that this case was not put in the pleadings or the issue and, therefore, it would prejudice the plaintiff if any additional evidence were taken.

8. By his order dated 13-5-69 the learned Munsif dismissed the application saying that the application was not maintainable under sec. 151, C.P.C. Then a second application was made by the defendant and it met the same fate. Eventually the suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff.

9. Against the decree of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff went up in appeal to the Court of District Judge, Ajmer, who assigned the appeal for disposal to the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer. During the course of the hearing of the appeal before the learned Addl. C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document