Honble GOYAL, J.–All these three second appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1998 whereby learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur while dismissing three appeals affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 9.4.1997.

(2). The relevant facts in brief are that the suit shop was let out on 12.8.1961 at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the original tenant Sh. Chhote Khan by Jaipur Cloth Retailer Association (in short the Association). The Association vide registered gift deed Ex. 5 dated 20.2.1986 gifted this shop to Pushthi Margiya Vaishanva Mandal (in short the Mandal) under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide a registered notice dated 25.2.1986. The Mandal vide registered sale deed Ex.1 dated 12.9.1986 sold this shop to the plaintiff-landlord Sh. Bhagwan Das for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- under intimation to Sh. Chhote Khan vide registered notice dated 4.10.1986, who filed the present suit on 25.2.1987 for arrears of rent and eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal reasonable and bonafide requirement as pleaded in paras 5 to 7 of the plaint.

(3). Vide written statement filed on 11.1.1987 the defendant- tenant Sh. Chhote Khan while admitting the facts of tenancy denied both the grounds of eviction with further pleas that the Association had no right to execute the gift deed and transaction of sale is sham and the Mandal also had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the present plaintiff-landlord.

(4). During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant Sh. Chhote Khan expired. Hence, his legal representatives-two sons and one daughter- all the three appellants were brought on record. Both the sons Abdul Salam and Abdul Vahid filed joint written statement with the same averments as stated in the written statement of Sh. Chhote Khan, while Smt. Khatun Begam- daughter of Sh. Chhote Khan did not appear. Hence, she was proceeded against exparte on 26.7.1991.

(5). Six issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 9.4.1997 decided issues No. 1, 2 & 6 relating to reasonable and bonafide requirement, greater hardship and partial eviction in favour of the plaintiff and also decided issue No. 4 with regard to sale deed Ex.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.3 of default in payment of rent was decided against the plaintiff and decreed the suit of eviction. Three regular first appeals preferred by all the three legal heirs of Sh. Chhote Khan were dismissed vide common judgment dated 15.9.1998. Hence, these three second appeals.

(6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission of these three second appeals.

(7). Prior to coming on merits of the appeals, it would be appropriate to deal with some of the applications filed on behalf of the appellants. It is also made clear that during the pendency of these second appeals, the appellant Smt. Khatun Begum expired, hence her legal representatives were brought on record. One application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the memo of appeal was filed in appeal No. 515/1998 for permission to raise legal objections under Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act). Since such objections have already been taken in remaining two second appeals, it is unnecessary to decide this application separately. Two applications-one under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and other under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement were submitted in second appeal No. 635/1998 filed by Sh. Abdul Salam. Both the applications contain similar facts that plaintiffs father Sh. Madan Gopal was carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Gordhan Das and Sh. Gordhan Das elder brother of the plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of Madan Gopal Mangi Lal and thus the plaintiffs father had two

Click Here to Read the rest of this document