Honble GOYAL, J.–The defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 21.2.2002. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.

(2). The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house No. H3, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of Rs. 265/-. Present rate of rent is Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub- letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.

(3). The defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommodation which is sufficient and the plaintiff either wants to let out this house on higher rent or wants to sell it out.

(4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

1- D;k oknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh Lo;a o viuh ifRu ds fuokl gsrq ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko;drk gS\ &oknh

2- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj ls izfroknh dks fu"dkflr u djus ij oknh dks izfroknh dks fu"dkflr djus ij gksus okyh dfBukbZ rqyukRed :i ls vf/kd dfBukbZ gksxh\ &oknh

3- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj ds vkafkd fu"dklu ls oknh dh vko;drk dh iwfrZ gksuk laHko gS\& oknh

4- D;k izfroknh us oknxzLr ifjlj esa oknh dh lgefr ds fcuk lkjHkwr ifjorZu@ifjo/kZu okn ds in la- 12 esa of.kZr izdkj ls fd;k gS\&oknh

5- D;k izfroknh us oknxzLr ifjlj dks oknh dh lgefr ds fcuk okn ds en la- 13 esa of.kZr izdkj ls vU; dEifu;ksa dks lcysV] vlkbu ;k ikVZfoFk itsku dj nh gS\ & oknh

6- D;k oknh izfroknh ls okn ds in la- 14 esa of.kZr izdkj ls 30]000@& :i;s dk gtkZuk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh

7- D;k oknxzLr ifjlj dk ekud fdjk;k 662-50 :i;s fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ & izfroknh

8- vuqrks"k\

(5). Evidence of both the parties was recorded and vide impugned judgment dated 21.2.2002 issues No. 4 & 6 were decided against the plaintiff and while deciding remaining issues in favour of the plaintiff a decree of eviction against the defendant was passed.

(6). The defendant vide this appeal has challenged the findings of the Trial Court on issues No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 while the plaintiff in cross-objections has challenged the findings of the Trial Court on issue No. 4.

(7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence. On the basis of the submissions made before this Court following points arise for consideration:-

(i) Whether the decision of the Trial Court with regard to issues No. 1 to 3 relating to reasonable and bonafide requirement, comparative hardship and partial eviction is justified ?

(ii) Whether the decision on issue No. 5 on the point of sub-letting, assignment or parting with the possession of the portion of the suit house is justified ?

(iii) Whether the decision on issue No. 4 with regard to material alterations is justified ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff was estopped on the basis of the acquiescence and waiver in seeking the eviction ?

(8). First Point:-Section 13 (1) (h) and (h) (i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) is as under:-

Section 13. Eviction of tenants :-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act unless it is satisfied;

(h) that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord:-

(h) (i) for the use or occupation of himself or his family.

(9). According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff along with his wife his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document