Honble MADAN, J.–The appellant (defendant) has challenged the judgment & decree dated 21.8.99 of the ADJ No. 2, Ajmer who allowed respondents civil appeal No. 1/98 by setting aside trial Courts judgment dated 15.1.96 in civil suit No. 8/91, and accordingly granted decree of eviction against the tenant (appellant).

(2). Facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (respondents-landlords) instituted a civil suit seeking decree of arrears of rent due from 1.1.1990 @ Rs. 50/- per month and for eviction of the defendant (appellant) from the suit shop described in the plaint on the grounds inter alia of-(1) default in making payment of regular & monthly rent @ Rs. 50/- from 1.1.1990, (2) denial of title of landlords (plaintiffs) as to the suit shop; and (3) bonafide and reasonable need of the plaintiffs.

(3). In written statement, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiffs had purchased Khasra Nos. 2098 & 2099, Christian Ganj Road Ajmer alongwith constructions thereon from legal representatives of Gopinath & Pannalal. However the defendants stated that the plaintiffs be put to strict proof as to the facts stated in para 1 of the plaint which were to the effect that the defendant was tenant of the legal representatives of Pannalal for a shop duly constructed in Khasra No. 2098/2099 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and that by virtue of purchase of aforesaid land of Khasras (supra) alongwith shop constructed thereon from 1.1.1990, the defendant became tenant of the plaintiffs by attornment. As per para 4 of the plaint, the notice of attornment was sent to the defendant but he defaulted by not paying monthly rent w.e.f 1.1.1990. In written statement as per para 12, the defendant denied himself to be tenant of the plaintiffs but it was stated that Narain Prakash Mathur was the owner of the suit shop.

(4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as eight issues were framed. The plaintiffs examined Rama Goyal (PW1) whereas defendant examined himself as DW1. After trial, the trial Court by its judgment dated 18.3.94 dismissed the suit for eviction, against which plaintiffs preferred civil first appeal No. 104/94 wherein by substituting issue No.1 and while setting aside dismissal of plaintiffs suit, the first appellate court by its judgment dated 6.10.95 remanded the suit back to the trial court under Order 41, Rule 23 CPC for deciding all the issues after taking evidence of the parties only on substituted issue No. 1.

(5). However, no evidence was led by both the parties and therefore, the trial Court after hearing arguments by its judgment dated 15.1.96 again dismissed suit No. 8/91 (144/90), against which the plaintiff preferred appeal No. 13/96 wherein the appellate court under its judgment dated 30.7.96 remanded the matter back to the trial Court for deciding issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5 afresh and newly framed issue No. 8A after affording opportunity to the parties for leading their evidence and thereby directed the trial Court to remit its conclusion on aforesaid four issues. The trial Court by its judgment dated 28.4.97 remitted its conclusions and according to findings arrived at by it, issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 & newly framed issue No. 8A were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Therefore the defendant submitted his objections against the conclusions drawn by the trial Court in its judgment dated 28.4.97 on issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 8A before the first appellate court. Accordingly the first appellate court heard the plaintiffs appeal against findings on issue Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 arrived at by the trial Court in its earlier judgment dated 15.1.96 and further considered the defendants objections as against conclusions drawn on reframed issue No. 8A & remanded issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5 under trial courts judgment dated 28.4.97 and after considering rival contentions, the first appellate court by impugned judgment dated 21.8.99 while deciding all issues

Click Here to Read the rest of this document