Hon'ble GOYAL, J.—This is defendants' second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 11/1/1990 passed by Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No.48/1989 (84/1981) whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31/1/1981 passed by Additional Munsif No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which the suit of plaintiff for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Rawal Rajeshwar filed a suit for eviction of the suit premises and arrears of rent against the defendant Harinarayan Sharma (since deceased) (who died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellants were substituted at his place) on the grounds of default, reasonable and bonafide necessity and sub-letting. According to the plaintiff, suit premises consisting of three small rooms (Kotharies) and one Bhukhari (particulars of which have been given in para no.1 of the plaint) were let-out to the defendant Hari Narayan on monthly rent of Rs.5.33. The defendant paid the rent uptil April, 1972 and thereafter no rent was paid, therefore, the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months. It was also stated that the plaintiff had donated the suit premises along with other properties to Mahant Rameshwar Das and the rented premises were required, for the residence of Mahant Rameshwar Das and other requirement of the temple. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendant had sub-let one Kothari situated at outside the temple to one Rampal Sharma and parted with possession thereof. Therefore, prayer was made for the decree of eviction of the suit premises and arrears of rent.

3. The defendant Harinarayan in his written statement denied the allegations and stated that he is not the tenant but in possession of the disputed property since last 30-35 years as owner and did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. It was also described as false that plaintiff has donated the disputed property to Mahant Rameshwar Das and further pleaded that plaintiff's suit is not maintainable if he has donated the property. It was further pleaded that suit premises are situated in the agricultural land which is in the name of Ram Chandra, therefore, Ram Chandra is a necessary party and such suit can only be heard by revenue court and civil court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.

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

^^1- vk;k okn i= dh /kkjk 1 esa of.kZr izhfelst izfroknh ds ikl 5½=33 iSls ekgokj esa fdjk;s ij gSA

2- vk;k izfroknh us ekg vizsy 1972 ls oknh dks dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;kA

3- vk;k izfroknh us oknh dks fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa 6 ekg ls vf/kd dk fMQkWYV fd;k gSA

4- vk;k okn dh /kkjk 4 ds vuqlkj oknh fooknxzLr ifjlj dh egUr jkes'oj nkl dks fjgk;'k o efUnj ds dk;Z ds fy, okLrfod ,oa ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gSA

5- vk;k izfroknh us fooknxzLr ifjlj ¼izhfelst½ esa ls ,d dksBjh dks lcysV dj fn;k gSA

6- vk;k izfroknh fooknxzLr ifjlj esa vlkZ 30-35 lky ls crkSj ekfyd dkfct gSA

7- vk;k nkok esa fdjk;snkjh dh rkjh[k ntZ ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA

8- vk;k efUnj o edkukr~ eqrnkfo;k —f"k Hkwfe [kljk ua- 221 o 222 esa fLFkr gS blfy, vnkyr gktk dks bl nkos dks lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

9- vk;k fooknxzLr edku oknh }kjk jkes'oj nkl dks c['kh'k dj fn;s tkdj dCtk nsus ds dkj.k oknh dks okn izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha jgrkA

10- nknjlhA**

5. The plaintiff in support of his case examined PW1 Jai Narain (power of attorney holder), PW2 Anoop Singh, PW3 Pep Singh, PW4 Ramswaroop Narayan, PW5 Anand Singh and produced receipts and other documents. The defendant in his evidence produced DW1 Jagdish Sharma, DW2 Laxmi Narayan, DW3 Ramswaroop Sharma, DW4 Girvar Singh, DW5 Hari Narayan, DW6 Laxmi Narayan, DW7 Bhonri Lal, DW8 Mool Chand and DW9 Jagdish Prasad.

6. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the rival submissions de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document