Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3167 (RAJ)

Ravikant Arya v. Ganga Sahay

2005-11-30

S.N.JHA

body2005
Judgment S.N. Jha, J.- This second appeal by the defendant arises from a suit for eviction. The suit was brought for eviction on the ground of default as well as personal necessity. As the appellant during pendency of the suit, paid the amount of rent due, no decree was passed on the ground of default. The Court passed decree only on the ground of personal necessity. 2. The case of the appellant is that the suit premises had been dedicated to Shri Laxmi Narainji Bhagwan way back in 1936 but the Will in respect of the property was executed in favour of the plaintiff s father on 26.03.1951. Even in the Will, it was mentioned that the property was being given for maintenance of the deities. It was submitted that the Court rejected the appellants case on wrong construction of the document and wrong construction of document is a question of law. 3. It is admitted position that the appellant executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff s father and paid rent to him and after his death, to the plaintiff . Being thus a tenant, it is clear that the appellant can contest the suit for eviction on limited grounds. 4. As regards personal necessity, the submission of Counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiff has shifted his residence from Bharatpur to Jaipur where he has constructed his house and the ground of personal necessity is really a ploy to sell the property. 5. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff has retired from service and one of his sons needs premises for doing business. Both the Courts below having accepted the plaintiff s case in this regard, in my opinion, the issue as regards personal necessity stands concluded by concurrent finding which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. 6. After the above order dictated, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be allowed time to vacate the premises. 7. Both the Courts below having accepted the plaintiff s case in this regard, in my opinion, the issue as regards personal necessity stands concluded by concurrent finding which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. 6. After the above order dictated, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be allowed time to vacate the premises. 7. After hearing Counsel for the respondent, I think that it would be in the ends of justice to allow the appellant to remain in possession of the premises till 31.05.2006 subject to his filing an undertaking that he will pay rent during this period; that he will handover the vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.05.2006; and that he will not allow directly or indirectly any third party to come in possession of the premises. In the event of failure to file undertaking or comply with the conditions, it will open to the plaintiff to put the decree to execution and in that case, the appellant may also be handed up for contempt. 8. Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed.