Honble YADAV, J. — This is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1994 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Civil Appeal No.6 of 1993 affirming the judgment and decree of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara dated 6.1.92 passed in Civil Original Suit No.133 of 1979 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for eviction.

(2). According to the plaint allegations, the suit-premises was let out to Mangi Lal on 5.8.67 at monthly rent of Rs. 12/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 15/-. The aforesaid suit was initially filed against the present defendant-appellants and Smt. Bhanwari and Smt. Radha daughters of deceased Mangi Lal on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent.

(3). During pendency of the suit, on 24.10.80, the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit against Smt. Bhanwari and Smt. Radha, who were arrayed as defendants No.3 and 4 respectively. The appellants did not raise any objection for withdrawal of the suit against the aforesaid two defendants.

(4). The defendant-appellants after service of notices, filed detailed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is stated by them that the plaintiffs need is neither bonafide nor reasonable. After provisional determination of rent by the learned trial court, the same was deposited by the appellants and they continued to deposit rent month by month as contemplated under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950).

(5). Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and after affording an opportunity to the plaintiff as well as defendants to adduce their evidence, recorded a categorical finding that need of the plaintiff is bonafide and reasonable, hence, decreed the suit.

(6). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the present defendant - appellants filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court, after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

(7). Against the dismissal of appeal by the learned lower appellate court, the defendant-appellants have filed the instant second appeal before this Court.

(8). The instant second appeal was admitted on 5.4.95 by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the following substantial question of law: —

"WHETHER on account of withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff against defendants No.3 and 4 in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Jeewanis case, the suit no more remained properly constituted one and was liable to be dismissed."

(9). I have heard Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants and learned counsel Mr. Lalit Kawadia, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent at length.

(10). According to learned counsel for the appellants, both the courts-below have erred in holding that since defendants No.3 and 4 were not carrying business in the shop premises, hence, they are not adversely affected by the decree. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Ram Jeewani vs. Smt. Norati Bai (1).

(11). Learned counsel Mr. Lalit Kawadia, appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. N.P. Gupta appearing on behalf of the appellants and urged before me that withdrawal of suit against defendants No.3 and 4 namely, Smt. Bhanwari and Smt. Radha by the plaintiff has no bearing on the merit of the case, therefore, both the courts-below have rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(12). In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document