JUDGMENT 1. - This is second appeal by landlord against the tenant respondent for eviction of the tenant respondent from the suit premises situate in the city of Ajmer the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ajmer, dated March 25, 1975, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Ajmer dated October 28, 1974. 2. The premises in dispute consists of one hall, four medium size rooms, two small side rooms, roof with a small room there on kitchen and one "tehkhana". 3. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground, inter alia, that the tenant had been allotted a suitable residence, namely, a railway quarter in Ajmer by his employers Western Railway. The tenant, in his written statement dated July 27, 1971, did not disputed the allotment of a suitable railway quarter to him. Subsequently, he sought permission to amend his written statement, which was granted. In his amended written statement dated April 20, 1973, the tenant admitted allotment of a residential accommodation by the Railway authorities but denied its suitability. It is significant to note that no reasons were given by the defendant in the written statement how the allotted railway quarter was not suitable to him. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed by the trial Court, was whether the railway quarter allotted to the defendant was not suitable to him. The trial Court, in consideration of the evidence led by the parties, decided his issue against the plaintiff. The relevant observations of the trial Court run as under:- "From the evidence of the parties it is admitted that the railway quarter was allotted to the defendant. There are only two rooms, bath room, kitchen and latrine in the railway quarter. Defendant's family consists of 14 to 15 members. Now the question is whether this quarter, which was allotted to the defendant, is suitable for residence ? The word 'suitable' as defined in Standard English Dictionary, means, found capable of 'suiting' or 'appropriate'. Whether two rooms are sufficient for the residence of 14 to 15 members of a family. The answer must be in negative. For a family of 15 members, which includes female members also, two rooms will not be sufficient for residence, plaintiff has failed to prove that quarter allotted to the defendant is suitable for residence. Whether two rooms are sufficient for the residence of 14 to 15 members of a family. The answer must be in negative. For a family of 15 members, which includes female members also, two rooms will not be sufficient for residence, plaintiff has failed to prove that quarter allotted to the defendant is suitable for residence. This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant". The lower appellate Court, in appeal, did not deal with this issue at all, although the finding of this issue was challenged before it. Sardar Singh Kothari, in his affidavit filed before this Court on August 23, 1975, categorically stated that he was present when this appeal was argued before the District Judge, Ajmer, and was advance for the appellant had assailed the judgment of the Munsiff on all those issues which were decided against the plaintiff landlord. The affidavit of Sardar Singh Kothari was not controverted on behalf of the defendant. 5. It is common ground between the parties that the defendant is a railway employee, posted in Ajmer. In his statement the defendant has admitted that so far as his family is concerned it consists of himself, his wife and four children. It was also not in dispute that the railway quarter was allotted to the defendant in the year 1969; and it consists of one room (big), and one small room besides kitchen, latrine and bath room. It can safely be said that the allotted railway quarter is suitable for the defendant and his family consisting of himself, his wife and his four children. Arguing the appeal, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the landlord appellant, urges that the suit premises, when let out, were being occupied by the defendant, his wife and his four children only. According to him, when the railway quarter was his four children only. According to him brother and his sisters were inducted therein and the defendant, with his own family, went away to the railway quarter. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant tenant, that the defendant, his wife, his children, his parents, his brother and his sisters were in occupation of the suit premises from the inception of the tenancy. The plaintiff has appeared in the witness box as PW. 1. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant tenant, that the defendant, his wife, his children, his parents, his brother and his sisters were in occupation of the suit premises from the inception of the tenancy. The plaintiff has appeared in the witness box as PW. 1. He showed his ignorance of the defendant his father, his brothers and his sisters reside in the suit premises from the very inception of the tenancy. His ignorance was probably due to the fact that he admittedly resides in Calcutta and he visited Ajmer only occasionally and that too for a couple of days only. PW. 4 Sardar Singh who is uncle of the plaintiff and who is probably more in touch with the suit premises, has deposed that the defendant's parents, his brothers and his sisters did not reside in the suit premises before allotment of the railway quarter. He has also deposed that the defendant after allotment of the railway quarter, resides in the railway quarter and not in the suit premises. The defendant has appeared in the witness box as DW 1. According to him, his parents, his brothers and his sisters reside with him in the suit premises from the very beginning. He has also deposed that his father is wholly dependent on him. He, however, does not say anything as to whether his brothers and sisters are also dependent on him. He also does not say that his parents, his brothers and his sisters constitute a joint Hindu family, and all of them are joint in mess. D.W. 2 Shrinath is the father of the defendant. He says that he and his sons, and his daughters are residing in the suit premises from the inception of the tenancy in the year 1956. He has further deposed that he is fully dependent on the defendant. He too has not said a word as to whether his other sons and daughters are dependent on the defendant. From his evidence it does not appear that all his sons and daughters along with him and his wife constitute a joint Hindu family. DW 3 Meghraj is a waterman who supplies water at the defendant's house. He is by caste Brahmin and visits the house on Amavashya. His evidence is that 11 to 12 members reside in the suit premises. DW 3 Meghraj is a waterman who supplies water at the defendant's house. He is by caste Brahmin and visits the house on Amavashya. His evidence is that 11 to 12 members reside in the suit premises. He has not said since how long these 11 to 12 members began residing in the suit premises. He has further stated that he has seen the defendant residing in the house and not in the allotted railway quarter. His evidence is not at all convincing and appears to be highly vague. 6. The next witness examined by the defendant is DW 4 Ashok Kumar. According to him, the defendant's family consists of 14 to 15 members. He has further deposed that the defendant has three sisters and four brothers besides the defendant's parents. He has also stated that the defendant has four children and a wife. According to this witness, the defendant resides in the railway quarter 10 to 15 days in a month and mostly he resides in the suit premises. That is the entire evidence adduced in the case. It is clear from the above evidence that except the defendant and his father, no one says that the defendant's parents, brothers and sisters commenced occupying the suit premises from the very inception of the tenancy. 7. Now the question arises whether the evidence of the defendant and his father should be relied upon in preference to the statement of PW 4 Sardar Singh who has categorically stated that the defendant's parents, his brothers and sisters commenced living in the suit premises after the allotment of the railway quarter. In my opinion, the statement of PW 4 Sardar Singh is more reliable. It may be recalled here that in the initial written statement filed by the defendant, he did not dispute that the railway quarter allotted to him was unsuitable for his needs. It is only later on that he amended the written statement and then came with the case that the railway quarter was unsuitable for his needs. In the written statement, as already pointed out, he did not give reasons, how the railway quarter was not suitable to him. Again; if the defendant constituted a joint Hindu family with his parents, his brothers and his sisters, the letting out of the premises should have been in the name of his father and not in the name of the defendant. Again; if the defendant constituted a joint Hindu family with his parents, his brothers and his sisters, the letting out of the premises should have been in the name of his father and not in the name of the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent laid considerable stress on Ex. A 3, which is a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant's father. It is dated January 3, 1968. The plaintiff, in his statement, admitted to have written this letter to the father of the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant from this letter wants me to infer that the defendant's father was in occupation of the suit premises before the railway quarter was allotted to the defendant. This inference could have been drawn if a question had been put to the plaintiff as to why he addressed the letter to the defendant's father when the suit premises were let out to defendant. No such question was put to the plaintiff. It is thus not clear from the record in what circumstances the plaintiff wrote letter Ex. A 3 to the father of the defendant. From this letter, it cannot be inferred that in the year 1968 the defendant's father was in occupation of the suit premises. Even assuming for a moment that the defendant's father was in occupation of the suit premises in the year 1968, that would not make much difference. Simply because the defendant's father was residing in the suit premises it cannot be said that his other sons and daughters were also residing therein. The finding arrived at by the trial Court that the railway quarter allotted to the defendant is unsuitable for a family of 15 members may be correct, but the defendant has failed to prove that the suit premises were let out initially to a family of 15 members. The plaintiff's case that the suit premises were let out to the defendant and it was being occupied by defendant, his wife and his four children, and the remaining members, namely, his brothers, his sisters and parents were inducted later on, appears to be correct. In this view of the matter it cannot be held that the railway quarter allotted to the defendant is not suitable for the defendant. In this view of the matter it cannot be held that the railway quarter allotted to the defendant is not suitable for the defendant. In my opinion, the plaintiff's case squarely falls within the purview of Section 13(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The tenant is consequently liable to be evicted. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the suit for eviction is decreed against the defendant. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent prays for leave to appeal to a Division Bench which is refused.Appeal allowed. *******