Order :

MANEESH SHARMA, J.

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Kotputli in First Civil Appeal No.28/2020(27/2012) CIS No.27/2012 titled 'Kailashchand & Ors. Vs. Smt. Saroj Devi', whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli in Civil Original Suit No.220/89 titled 'Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. Kailashchand &Ors.' was confirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28.05.1987, the original plaintiff, namely, legal representatives of Late Lala Surajbhan Gupta filed a suit for rent and eviction against the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal (original tenant).

3. In the eviction suit it was stated that the suit property was let out to Late Gyarsi Lal on 01.01.1983 for a period of 11 months on a rent of Rs.125/- per month. It was also stated therein that Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) had paid rent up to 01.01.1985 and thereafter, committed default in payment of rent as the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) had failed to pay or tender rent for a period of more than six months. It was further stated that the suit premises had deteriorated and needed repairs, thus, eviction of the tenant was necessary.

4. During the pendency of the said suit, the suit property was alienated by the legal representatives of Late Lala Surajbhan Gupta to Smt. Saroj Devi vide registered sale deed dated 26.06.1998. Therefore, Smt. Saroj Devi was impleaded as a party under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, and thereafter the suit was pursued by Smt. Saroj Devi against the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal.

5. Subsequently, the defendants/appellants filed their written statement on 02.06.1990, wherein they refuted the averments made in the plaint and stated that the suit property was owned by Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) and upon his death the suit property was devolved on to the present defendants/appellants.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as seven issues, which are as follows:-

7. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the pleas and averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents examined PW-1- Ghansiram, PW-2-Kishore Lal, PW-3-Ramkishan, PW-3-Brijmohan Gupta, PW-4-Dr. Hussain Rajjak Khan, PW-5-Saroj Sharma and produced documents Ex.1-Rent agreement, Ex.2- Patta, Ex.3-Will, Ex.4-property declaration, Ex.5-newspaper cutting, Ex.6-post office slip, Ex.7-Return, Ex.8-Declaration, Ex.9 to Ex.16-Letter, Ex.13B-Hindi translation of Will, Ex.18-Letter, Ex.19-Sale Deed, Ex.20-21-order of land record in favour of Jamnasahay by Nagarpalika Kotputli and Ex.22-Site Plan.

8. In rebuttal, the defendants/appellants examined DW-1 Kailash s/o Gyarsi Lal, DW-2 Kailash Chand Soni, DW-3 Smt. Bharpai, DW-3 Raghuwardayal, DW-4 Lokesh Kumar, DW-5 Satya Naraian, DW-6 Sanjay Mittal and also produced documents Ex.A1- Licence, Ex.A2-Site Plan, Ex.A3-Certificate, Ex.A4-Power of Attorney, Ex.A5-Site Plan.

9. After hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/landlord and vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 decreed the suit for eviction against the defendants/appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and directed the defendants/appellants to handover peaceful possession of the disputed suit property to the plaintiffs/respondents within a period of two months, and the defendants/appellants were further directed to pay the outstanding rent @ Rs.125 per month from 01.01.1985 along with6% interest per annum.

10. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012, the defendants/appellants preferred a regular appeal No.28/2020(27/2012) and the learned Appellate Court after considering all the pleadings and