LODHA, J. —This is a defendant-tenants second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a portion of house situated in Chokri Vishwesarji in the city of Jaipur. The house is popularly known as Nanaji ki Haweli and originally belonged to Thakur Devraj Singh from whom the plaintiffs purchased it by a registered sale deed dated the 25th July, 1960. The plaintiffs had already been running a private college named Jaipur College in a part of this Haweli before they purchased it and the defendant was occupying a portion of the Haweli as Thakur Devraj Singhs tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. He attorned in favour of the plaintiffs after they had purchased the whole house. The plaintiffs case is that they required the premises leased out to the defendant for their own residence as well as lor the purpose of providing a hostel for the scholars of the Jaipur College and Vidhya Mandir College so as to run . both the institutions efficiently and ultimately get them recognised by the Government. They alleged that it was with the aforesaid object that they had purchased the Haweli. Notice dated 22 April, 1963 was served by the plaintiffs on the defendant by registered post terminating the letters tenancy and thereafter the present suit was filed by them in the court of Munsiff (East), Jaipur on 24 July, 1963. Besides personal necessity, the plaintiffs also relied on ground of default having been committed by the defendant by not paying rent for more than six months. They prayed for a decree for ejectment as well as a money decree for Rs.2,2750/- on account of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation after the alleged termination of tenancy. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs, suit He denied the plaintiffs necessity for the premises in question and pleaded that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable as the notice for termination of tenancy being not in accordance with the provisions of secs. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not valid His case was that the premises had been taken on rent for the purpose of running Diamond Printing Press as well as for cards and preparing card-board boxes and consequently the lease was for manufacturing purposes terminable by six months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy.

2. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by the trial court the defendant filed appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his judgment and decree dated 2 May, 1972, affirmed the judgment and decree by the trial court. Hence this appeal by the defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the following points in support of the appeal—

(1) That the lease was for manufacturing purposes and as such, it shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by six months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy and since in the present case the plan tiffs gave notice Exhibit-2 dated 22 April, 1963 terminating the lease from 24 June, 1963, the notice was bad;

(2) That in case the lease is held to be not for manufacturing purposes, even then the notice is bad because it terminates the lease one day before the expiry of the month of tenancy;

(3) That the notice is bad also because it only calls upon the defendant to vacate the premises but there is no mention of termination of the tenancy;

(4) That the plea regarding personal necessity cannot be accepted as there is variance between the notice and the plaint on this point;

(5) That the defendant had tendered the rent to the plaintiffs by money orders prior to the filing of the suit but the plaintiffs refused the same and consequently the defendant was not a defaulter and the case does not fall under sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and

(6) That the rent for the shop in question was being paid by a partnership firm and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document