JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Appeal Decree No.2/95 - LRs of Barkat Ali v. Smt. Jenab & Ors., affirming the judgment and decree 13.12.1994 passed by the learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate First Class No.5, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.207/93 - Smt.Jenab & Ors. v. LRs of Barkat Ali, decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondents. 2. v. LRs of Barkat Ali, decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondents. 2. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1994 passed by the Trial Court is as under:- rudh uEcj nks% bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij FkkA bl laca/k esa okfnuh us vius vfHkopu esa oknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k 15@& :i;s ekgokj gksuk of.kZr djrs gq;s nkok djus dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ iwoZ rd dk fdjk;k 540@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gSA bl laca/k esa ih0M0&1&tSru us l'kiFk dFku fd;k gS fd cjdr vyh esjs fdjk;snkj gSaA bldks iwjk edku 15@& :i;s ekgokj fdjk;s ij yh FkhA blus rhu o"kZ dk fdjk;k ugha fn;kA nkok fd;k rc rhu o"kZ dk fdjk;k cdk;k gSA blds foijhr izfroknh us vius tokc nkos esa of.kZr fd;k gS fd okfnuh dks HkwLokeh gksuk ekuus ls bUdkj fd;k gS ,oa vafdr fd;k gS fd og Lo;a edku ekfyd gS bl fLFkfr esa 15@& :i;s ekgokj fdjk;k gksuk vFkok fdjk;k cdk;k gksuk xyr gSA rudh uEcj ,d ds foospu ds vuqlkj i{kdkjksa ds chp HkwLokeh fdjk;snkjh gksuk ekuk x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa okfnuh ds O;frdzeh ds laca/k esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa dk ,oa vfHkopuksa dk dksbZ Li"V o.kZu gksuk ugha ik;k tkrkA ;|fi okfnuh dh ftjg ds nkSjku izn'kZ 1 i= ds izdk'k esa fdjk;k 8@& :i;s ekgokj gksus ds dFku vk;s gSa ijUrq bl ckcr~ okfnuh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og esjh cgu gS blfy, 15@& :i;s ls Hkh fdjk;k nsrs Fks rFkk eSa og ys ysrh FkhA vr% okfnuh dh eq[; ijh{kk esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa ds izdk'k esa ;g fojks/kkHkkl lkjHkwr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vr% izfroknhx.k dks O;frdzeh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA nkSjkus nkok Hkh izfroknhx.k }kjk dksbZ fdjk;k tek ugha djok;k x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k /kkjk 13 ( 6 ) jktLFkku ifjlj fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa csn[kyh vf/kfu;e izFke O;frdzeh gksus dk Qk;nk Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% ;g rudh blh :i esa cgd okfnuhx.k fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA rudh uEcj rhu% bu rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj okfnuh ij FkkA bl laca/k esa oknhx.kksa us vius vfHkopuksa esa lHkh dh vyx&vyx vko';drk of.kZr djrs gq;s jgokl gsrq oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko';drk crkbZ gSA bl laca/k esa ih0M0&1&Jherh tSuc ds l'kiFk dFku gS fd lu~ 1985 esa ukUnsM+ esa v/;kfidk FkhA eSa 1988 uoEcj esa fjVk;j gks xbZA fjVk;jesaV ds ckn jkbZdkckx eSa esjs nksfgrh tekbZ gSa mlds ikl jg jgh gwaA mldk uke glu eksgEen gSA cjdr vyh dks tks edku fn;k gqvk gS mlds vykok esjs ikl dksbZ Hkh edku ugha gSA nksgrh tekbZ dks fdjk;k ugha nsrh gwa ijUrq cgqr ijs'kkuh gksrh gS NksVk lk edku esa lkFk jg jgs gSaA esjk ogka ij jgus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA esjh yM+dh :[klkuk ek.kd pkSd esa jgrh gSA ,oa yM+dh jsguk fgEeruxj xqtjkr esa jgrh gSA esjh yM+dh lqYrku Hkh fgEeruxj jgrh gS] ftldh nks yM+fd;ka tks/kiqj jkbZdkckx esa jgrh gSA fjVk;jesaV ds ckn eSa tks/kiqj esa oknxzLr edku esa jguk pkgrh Fkh ijUrq og [kkyh ugha gksus ls etcwju jkbZdkckx esa Hkrhth taokbZ ds lkFk jguk iM+ jgk gSA oknxzLr edku [kkyh gks tkus ij eSa jgkuk ds lkFk vdsyh ugha jg ldrhA ih0M0&2&glu eksgEen Hkh lk{; esa is'k gqvk gS ftlus okfnuh ds bu dFkuksa dh iqf"V dh gS fd okfnuh vc jkbZdkckx esa esjs edku esa fjVk;jesaV 1988 ds ckn ls jgrh gSA ;g esjs edku esa esgeku ds rkSj ij jgrh gSA ih0M0&3&cqUnw eksgEen ,oa ih0M0&4&[kkrwu us Hkh okfnuh ds vko';drk gksus ckcr~ dFku fd;k gSA okfnuh ,oa mlds xokgksa }kjk ln~Hkkoh vko';drk ds ckjs fd;s x;s dFkuksa dk dksbZ fof'k"B [kaMu izfroknh }kjk bl :i esa ugha fd;k x;k gS fd okfnuh dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko';drk ugha gSA rudh uEcj ,d ds foospu ds vuqlkj i{kdkjksa ds chp HkwLokeh fdjk;snkjksa dk laca/k gksuk ekuk x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa fdlh fj'rsnkj ds ;gka esgeku ds :i esa jguk dh fLFkfr esa vius Lo;a ds edku esa vkdj viuh iq=h dh yM+fd;ksa ds lkFk jgus dh vko';drk ln~Hkkoh gh dgh tk;sxhA vr% ;g rudh cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA vkns'k vr% oknhx.k dk ;g okn cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k oknxzLr ifjlj iM+ksl okn&i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa vafdr fd;s x;s gSa] dk [kkyh dCtk izfroknhx.kksa ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA izfroknhx.k dks bl gsrq nks ekg dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls p<+s fdjk;s dks bl gsrq nks ekg dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls p<+s fdjk;s ds 540@& :i;s rFkk rkjh[k nk;jh nkok ls rk feyus oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk 15@& :i;s ekgokj dh nj ls gtkZuk Hkh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfjuh gSA oknhx.k okn [kpkZ Hkh izfroknhx.kksa ls izkIr djsaxsA rn~uqlkj fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkosA Sd/- ( ;qf/kf"Bj 'kekZ ) vfr0 flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( dfu"B [k.M ) ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV la[;k ikap] tks/kiqj " 3. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1995 passed by the Appellate Court is as under:- " 17- ---vr% Li"V :i ls izfroknhx.k fooknxzLr ifjlj ij viuk LokfeRo fl) djus esa vlQy jgh gSA izfroknhx.k us vius tokc nkos esa dCtk eq[kkyQkuk ds vk/kkj ij Hkh fooknxzLr edku ij viuk LokfeRo gksuk crk;k gSA tokcnkos ds voyksdu ls ,slk dgha Hkh izdV ugha gksrk gS fd mUgksaus vFkok cjdr vyh us dHkh fooknxzLr edku ds lEcU/k esa tSuc ds LoRo dks ekuk gks rFkk fQj mldh tkudkjh esa bl LoRo ls bUdkj fd;k gksA ;g dc bUdkj fd;k x;k ,slk Hkh dqN ugha gSA vr% dCtk eq[kkyQkuk ds fy;s vk/kkjHkwr rF; gh tokc nkos esa ugha gSA vr% ;g vfHkokd~ ( Iyh ) v/kwjh ,oa vfuf'pr gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dks dksbZ enn ugha djrh gSA lk{kh edlwn vyh Mh0M0&1 us blds foijhr vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd okfnuh tSuc ds llqj rUgkc{k ds rhu edku Fks ftuesa ls ,d dcwrjksa ds pkSd dk ;g fooknxzLr edku gSA tSuc dk [kjhn lqnk edku ,Dth&1 i= ij fn;s irs dk edku gS] tks orZeku esa fdjk;s ij gSA ,slk gksus ls ;g edku tSuc ds LokfeRo dk gksuk Lo;a izfroknh edlwn vyh Mh0M0&1 us vius dFkuksa esa Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA vfHkys[k ij ,d cspkuukek ekStwn gS tks dLVksfM;u foHkkx ds le{k vf/kdkjh }kjk oknhx.k ds i{k esa fy[kk x;k Fkk ij bls lkfcr ugha djok;k x;k gSA ,slk gksus ij Hkh mDr Lohd'fr ds dkj.k oknhx.k gh fooknxzLr edku dk Lokeh gSA ,sls esa izfroknhx.k dk oknhx.k dk fooknxzLr edku dk LoRo bUdkj lkfcr gS vr% i{kdkjksa esa HkwLokeh ,oa fdjk;nkjksa dk lEcU/k gksuk lkfcr gksrk gSA 18- Lohd'r :i ls izfroknhx.k us fdjk;k ugha fn;k gS rFkk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjth rkSj ij fu/kkZfjr fdjk;k Hkh tek ugha djok;k gSA vr% ;s O;frdzeh gS vkSj vf/kfu;e ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fo:) laj{k.k izkIr djus ds gdnkj ugha gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij Hkh csn[kyh ds fy;s nk;h gSA Lohd'r :i ls cjdr vyh us uhps nqdkuksa dks mi fdjk;s ij fn;k gSA ;g rF; tokc nkos esa gS rFkk okfnuh tSuc Hkh vius dFkuksa esa ,slk crkrh gSA Lo;a edlwn vyh Mh0M0&1 ,oa esgewn vyh Mh0M0&4 Hkh ;g ekurs gSa fd fdjk;snkj Qdhj eksgEen ,oa tckj gSa muls fdjk;k Hkh cjdr vyh ds le; ls fy;k tkrk jgk gSA vr% csn[kyh dk ;g vk/kkj lkfcr gSA 20- eq0 tSuc lsokfuo'Rr gksdj tks/kiqj glu eksgEen ih0M0&2 ds ikl edku ds vHkko esa jg jgh gSA mlds ikl jgus dks tks/kiqj esa fooknxzLr edku ds vykok vU; dksbZ edku ugha gSA vius lkFk vius fo/kok iq=h jsgkuk dks j[ksxh rFkk mlds cPps Hkh lkFk jgsaxsA lkFk gh :dlkuk tks fdjk;s ds edku esa jg jgh gS] mls Hkh lkFk j[ksxh lqYrkuk Hkh iq=h tks/kiqj esa fdjk;s ds edku esa jgrh gS mls Hkh vius ikl bl edku esa j[ksaxhA orZeku esa bl vko';drk dks fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ln~Hkkoh ,oa ;qfDr;qDr gksuk ekuk gS tks lgh gSA ;g oknhx.k dh cyorh ,oa ck/;dkjh vko';drk gS vr% fcuk fdlh ijrj gsrq ds gSaA bl edku ds u feyus ij mls T;knk dfBukbZ gksxhA ;g lgh gS fd izfroknhx.k ds ifjokj esa 18&19 lnL; gS ij tc oknhx.k fooknxzLr ifjlj ds HkwLokeh gS rFkk mldh vko';drk fu"diV ,oa gkfnZd rFkk okLrfod jgh gS rks fQj rqyukRed :i ls gh T;knk dfBukbZ gksxhA nksuksa i{k ;g ekurs gSa fd vkaf'kd fu"dklu ls fdlh dk Hkh dku ugha pysxkA vr% vko';drk dk ;g csn[kyh dk vk/kkj Hkh lkfcr gSA 21- nksuksa i{kdkjksa us vius&vius LoRo ds ckjs esa Hkh ;g okn yM+k gSA ;|fi ;g lkekU; fu;e gS fd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu nkoksa esa csn[kyh ds vUrxZr ,oa HkwLokeh rFkk fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k LFkkfir ,oa lkfcr gksus ij gh fMdzh nh tkrh gS vkSj ,sls nkos LoRo ds nkoksa esa ifjofrZr ugha fd;s tkus pkfg;s] ijUrq tgka Lo;a fdjk;snkj dCtk eq[kkyQkuk dk Dyse tokc nkos esa mBkrk gS vkSj Lo;a dks blds vk/kkj ls fooknxzLr ifjlj dk Lokeh crkrk gS rc bl lEcU/k esa fook|d ugha gksus ij Hkh ;fn nksuksa i{k lk{; nsrs gSa rks dnkfpr HkwLokeh ,oa fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k LFkkfir Hkh ugha gksuk ekuk tkos rks fQj oknhx.k LoRo ds vk/kkj ij gh fooknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr djus ds gdnkj gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us bl LokfeRo dh lk{; dks ns[kk gS rFkk bls oknhx.k ds i{k esa ik;k gSA bl U;k;ky; dk Hkh mijksDr esa tks lk{; vkbZ gS] blds vk/kkj ls ;gh vfHker jgk gSA izfroknhx.k viuk Dyse Lo;a ds LokfeRo dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA ,sls esa fu.kZ; f'ko izlkn xxZ cuke HkS: flag] 1989@1 vkj0,y0vkj0 333] ds vuqlkj Hkh oknhx.k fooknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus ds gdnkj gSA ;g fu"d"kZ fodYi esa fn;k tk jgk gSA ;g ,d fof/k dh fLFkfr gS] ftls vihyxr U;k;ky; ns[k ldrh gSA 22- rn~uqlkj bl vihy esa dksbZ lkj ugha gS vkSj vc ;g lO;; [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA Sd/- ?khlkyky pkS/kjh vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] la[;k&2] tks/kiqj " 4. Being aggrieved, the defendants-appellants-legal representatives of Barkat Ali have filed the present second appeal in this Court on 10.05.1995. 5. A coordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the present second appeal on 18.05.1995, has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- "(1) Whether the courts below have committed an error in passing the decree of eviction against the appellants-defendants on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established by the plaintiff-landlord? (2) Whether the learned lower appellate court is right in deciding the question of title in favour of the plaintiff on the assumption of affirming the finding of the trial court under the mistaken plea that the trial court has decided the question of title in favour of the plaintiff although the trial court has refused to consider this question at the instance of the plaintiff himself?" 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the judgments and decree of both the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the substantial questions of law, as framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondents-landlord and against the defendants-appellants-tenants. 7. The question of title is not relevant at all in the eviction cases, and therefore, the same is not required to be decided by the Court. Question No.2 is therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff. The relationship of landlord-tenant was very well established by the plaintiff, while seeking decree on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, on which the settled legal position as per few judgments cited below, the eviction decree deserves to be upheld in the present case. 8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. The relationship of landlord-tenant was very well established by the plaintiff, while seeking decree on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, on which the settled legal position as per few judgments cited below, the eviction decree deserves to be upheld in the present case. 8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 252 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the eviction is sought for bona fide requirement of landlord, the relevant date on which the said need has to be adjudged is the date of filing the suit and subsequent events taking place during the period of litigation like engaging in other activity or business for which premises in question is required do not upset such bona fide need unless such subsequent events are of such a nature & dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether and the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief when litigation at last reaches the final stage. 9. In Prativa Devi v. T.V.Krishnan - (1996) 5 SCC 353 , the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement observed as under:- "The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court was rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thought that because of her age she needed to be looked after. That was a lookout of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for. There is nothing to sh ow that she had any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of the family friend. On the other hand, she was there merely by sufferance. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for. There is nothing to sh ow that she had any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of the family friend. On the other hand, she was there merely by sufferance. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. The High Court was in error in laying down that the test is availability of alternative accommodation and not the legal right to such occupation in adjudging the bonafides of the claim of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In considering the availability of alternative accommodation, the Court has to consider not merely whether such accommodation is available but also whether the landlord has a legal right to such accommodation. The appellant had established her bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and her claim could not be disallowed merely on the ground that she was staying as a guest with a family friend by force of circumstances." 10. More over, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in a recent decision of two Judges bench in Satyawati Sharam v. Union of India - (2008) 5 SCC 287 , which has been later on reaffirmed by three Judges bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & anr. v. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors. - (2009) 9 SCC 772 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly noticed that even the trend of Apex Court has shifted from pro-tenant from 1950's to 1990's to pro-landlord from 1990's onwards. The relevant extracts from the judgments in case of Satyawati Sharma (supra) & Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. are quoted below for ready reference: "12. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgments of 1950 to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. There has been a definite shift in the court's approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgments of 1950 to early 1990s would indicate that in majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. In these cases the Court consistently held that the paramount object of every rent control legislation is to provide safeguard for tenants against exploitation by landlords who seek to take undue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation of a large number of people looking for a house on rent for residence or business in the background of acute scarcity thereof. However, a different trend is clearly discernible in the later judgments." 11. The relevant para 71 of the judgment of Apex Court in Super Max International (P) Ltd. (supra) is quoted below for ready reference: "71.We reaffirm the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma and emphasise the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the relationship between the landlord and tenant. This is not to say that the Court should lean in favour of the landlord but merely that there is no longer any room for the assumption that all tenants, as a class, are in dire circumstances and in desperate need of the Court's protection under all circumstances. (The case of the present appellant who is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. in a building, situate at Fort, Mumbai on a rental of Rs. 5236.58/-,plus water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" 12. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the defendants-appellants-tenants is dismissed, while answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiff-respondents-landlord, and it is directed that the appellants-defendants-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question situated in Kabootaron Ka Chowk, Jodhpur to the respondents-plaintiffs-landlord on or before 31.12.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.3,000/- per month (Rupees Three Thousand only) commencing from the month of January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******