S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This is tenants second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Suraj Bai.

2. The plnintiff Smt. Suraj Bai filed the present suit for eviction of the suit premises which was given on rent to the appellants on 13.6.1951 at the rate of Rs 18/- per month and wherein the appellants have got their goodown. The plaintiff is running a primary school namely. Nehru Bai Shikahsa Kendra and the accommodation which she had, was insufficient for the School. Therefore, she required the suit premises which is adjacent to the school, for accommodating the students as also for office.

3. The suit v as contested by the tenants. In the written statement, it has been asserted that there is no reasorable and bonafide necessity and further that the plaintiff wanted to increase the rent of the suit premises, and with this object, the suit h?s been filed only to haras the defendants.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following four issues:.

^^¼1½ vk;k okfnuh dks fooknxzLr lEifÙk dh futh okLrfod ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko;drk gS\

¼2½ vk;k fMØh bUDyk; fiM+hr u gksus dh lwjr esa okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ds eqdkcys esa T;knk gkMZfki gksxh\

¼3½ vk;k izfroknh us fooknxzLr lEifÙk dks lClVsfUk;yh MsesT; fd;k gS\

¼4½ voqrho**

5. The plaintiff did not examine herself but she examined Gulab Chand her genera! power of attorney holder and PW-2 Narain Lal; whereas defendants also examined Lajpat Rai as DW-1 and Chunnilal as DW-2.

6. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove her bonafide and reasonable requirement.

7. The plaintiff preferred appeal and the first appellate court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It found that the suit premises are required by the plaintiff reasonable and bonafide. It is against these judgment and decree that the present appeal has been filed.

8. This appeal was admitted after hearing both the counsels for the parties and the only substantial question of law that was framed by the court at the time of admission, was as under:-

"Whether the statement of PW-1 Gulab Chand alleged to be constituted attorney could be considered to be legal evidence in the case on the question of reasonable and bonafied necessity of the plaintiff under the provisions of section 13(l)(h) of the Act."

This case was ordered to be listed for final disposal on 4.8.86 and hence, this appeal has come up before me today for final dispsoal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land-lady has not examined herself and there an adverse inference should be drawn against her. He has further submitted that the power of attorney holder Gulab Chand was not authorised to give statement, by Mukhtiarnama (Ex. 1). He has further submitted that before filing the suit the notice was given to the defendants on the instructions of the plaintiff, amended plaint, Vakalatnama. and the memo of appeal have all been signed by the plaintiff herself and no reason has been assigned nor any explanation offered as to why the plaintiff did not examine herself He has drawn my attention to the evidence of PW-1 Gulab Chand and has submitted that he has refrained from disclosing material facts, in cross-examination. In this connection he has placed reliance on Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was also placed on Virendra Pal V. Daljit Singh Sandhu (1) Nanalal Goverdhandas & Co. V. Smt. Samrathbai Lilachand Shah (2) Bombay 1); Chinta Narayanamma V. Kholli Sahu (5) and Gangabisan Panalal Joshi V. Dattatrava Chandrega Bilade and another (4).

10. He has further submitted that the first appellate court was not justified in reversing the finding of the trial court and it has not given cogent reasons as to why it had interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In this conne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document