JUDGMENT BY THE COURT: 1. The eviction suit of 1982 in the present second appeals, which was itself the second round of litigation, and the first eviction suit of the year 1969 filed by the landlord/plaintiff although decided in favour of landlord, however, no decree of eviction was granted on account of amendment in law of insertion of Section 13A in the Act of 1950 and giving the benefit of first default in payment of rent, no eviction was directed but the present suit of the year 1982 came to be decreed by the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhinmal, District: Jalore on 08.07.2006, after 24 years of trial. The first appellate court, however, took two years to decide the appeal but setting aside the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court, allowed the defendants/tenants' appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 and thus the appellants/plaintiffs were required to file the present two second appeals under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, in which the cross-objector (Bhura Ram) has also filed his cross objections, though with delay, being Civil Cross Objection No.2/2012 in CSA No.210/2008 and all these three cases are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The present suit also had a chequered history and the burden of arguments raised on behalf of defendants/tenants, mainly the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, the real brother of original tenant, namely, late Sh. Sankal Chand, and so also the cross objection filed by Bhura Ram, was to convert this eviction suit under the Rent Control Law into a title suit and that is what Mr. Om Mehta, learned counsel for the Cross-Objector (Bhura Ram) tried his level best to do; but as the well settled legal position is that question of title is not relevant in rent control eviction cases, and once the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and established before the trial court on the own admission of the original tenant, late Sh. Sankal Chand of having executed the Rent-Note (Exhibit-1), was established, the entire effort of Mr. Om Mehta, to argue the case on behalf of Bhura Ram that he was not a sub-tenant of his real brother, but was the owner of the portion of the tenanted plot of land, in which he used to run his workshop as carpenter under the name of M/s Vishwakarma Industries was an exercise of futility. Om Mehta, to argue the case on behalf of Bhura Ram that he was not a sub-tenant of his real brother, but was the owner of the portion of the tenanted plot of land, in which he used to run his workshop as carpenter under the name of M/s Vishwakarma Industries was an exercise of futility. Neither any question of law has been framed by the coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the present second appeals of the plaintiffs/landlord, nor such question of law as per settled legal position of law on the issue of question of title can be decided in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950. 3. The factual matrix in nutshell, as narrated in the order of the learned trial court dated 18.07.2006 is as infra. The suit premises, a plot of land measuring 1620 square yards [54'x120' = 6480 Square Ft., divided by 4 = 1620 Square Yards (1 yard = 2'x2')] , is situated at Railway Station Road, Bhinmal, District: Jalore. The said plot of land was jointly owned by S/Sh. Pratapmal S/o Hastimal and Bhabootmal S/o Oakhraj, and after the death of Pratapmal, his portion was sold by his legal representatives, namely, Pukhraj, Bhupatmal and Mst. Bhanwari D/o late Sh. Pratapmal, in favour of plaintiff No.2, Jawantraj S/o Shivraj and plaintiff No.2, Champalal S/o Jawantraj, on 23.07.1981. The Exhibit-1 is the Rent-note, which was executed on 09.03.1964 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Hastimal S/o Sh. Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Bastimal, for a monthly rent of Rs.13.50 per month by the original defendant/tenant Sankal Chand S/o Nopaji Suthar. Sankal Chand and Bhura Ram, are sons of Sh. Nopaji Suthar and the original tenant, Sankal Chand died on 16.04.1979 and is now represented by his legal heirs, Hansraj, Manaram, Jassaram, Babulal, all sons of late Sankal Chand, and Smt. Oti Wd/o late Sankal Chand, Mst. Shanta D/o Sankalchand. The defendant No.7, Bhuraram S/o Nopaji was also impleaded in the eviction suit as sub-tenant. 4. Nopaji Suthar and the original tenant, Sankal Chand died on 16.04.1979 and is now represented by his legal heirs, Hansraj, Manaram, Jassaram, Babulal, all sons of late Sankal Chand, and Smt. Oti Wd/o late Sankal Chand, Mst. Shanta D/o Sankalchand. The defendant No.7, Bhuraram S/o Nopaji was also impleaded in the eviction suit as sub-tenant. 4. Initially, the suit No.8/1969 was filed by Pratapmal for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent before the court of learned Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal, against the original tenant, Sankal Chand, on the basis of Rent-note (Ex.1) dated 09.03.1964, which was decreed on 14.11.1973 and the same was upheld by the appellate court on 25.02.1975, rejecting objections raised by the defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand that the civil court had no jurisdiction since the land in question was an agricultural land and, therefore, the revenue court had the jurisdiction and that there was any insertion in the rent note dated 09.03.1964 about the word that a “Chhapra” was kept in the possession of the landlord. That suit having been decreed, was not executed on account of amendment in law inserting Section 13A in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') and, therefore, the benefit of first default was extended to the tenant and eviction was not directed and that is why a fresh eviction suit came to be filed by the landlord, being Civil Original Suit No.22/1982, inter-alia, on the ground of bona fide need of the suit premises for landlord and his family members, material alterations in the suit property, sub-letting of the part of the suit property by original tenant, Sankal Chand in favour of his real brother, namely, Bhura Ram. It was alleged that the defendant had large chunk of land on Raniwada road in Bhinmal itself, where they had their residential house with large chunk of open land on which they could shift their workshop of carpenter and thus the eviction deserves to be granted in favour of landlord and since the tenancy was terminated by serving a notice upon them on 05.10.1981 with effect from 01.12.1981. 5. The learned trial court framed as many as 17 issues in the said trial and ultimately decreed the suit on 18.07.2006. 5. The learned trial court framed as many as 17 issues in the said trial and ultimately decreed the suit on 18.07.2006. The relevant findings of the learned trial court on the issues for which substantial questions of law have been framed by a coordinate bench of this Court, are quoted a little later for ready reference. 6. The defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand as well as subtenant, Bhura Ram, filed separate appeals before the first appellate court, namely, Civil Appeal No.3/2006-Bhura Ram, through legal guardian Shantilal S/o Bhura Ram Vs. LR's of Hastimal S/o Kewalji & Ors., and Civil Appeal No.4/2006-Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand & Ors. The said appellate of learned Additonal District Judge, Bhinmal, District: Jalore, allowed the appeals of the defendants/tenants on 23.02.2008 and reversing the decree of eviction, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs (landlord) have filed the present second appeals on 03.05.2008, which has taken almost five years to be argued even for admission and only on 04.04.2013, a coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the present second appeal/s and framing questions of law, passed the following order, which reads as under: - “Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: -(1)Whether the appellate Court has materially erred in law in reversing the finding on Issue No.4 recorded by the trial court with regard to material alteration made by the defendants without the permission of the plaintiffs? (2)Whether the appellate Court has materially erred in law in mis appreciating the evidence on record and in reversing the finding on Issue No.5 recorded by the trial court with regard to the subletting of some portion of the property to the defendant No.7? (3)Whether the appellate court has materially erred in law in reversing the finding on Issue No.7 recorded by the trial court with regard to the bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs of the suit premises? (4)Whether the appellate Court has materially erred in law in not appreciating the evidence on record in proper prospective to hold that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and not in favour of the defendants? (4)Whether the appellate Court has materially erred in law in not appreciating the evidence on record in proper prospective to hold that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and not in favour of the defendants? Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the facts of the case, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the possession, alienation and creation of third party interest in the suit premises, till the pendency of the appeal. Put up on alongwith Civil Second Appeal No.209/2008.” 7. On the earlier occasion, when the respondents/defendants were even avoiding the service of the summons of the present second appeal, this Court took a serious view of the matter on 19.09.2012 and sought to issue contempt notices to the defendants, who were deliberately avoiding the service of the summons and even obstructed the process server to affix the notice on the suit premises, mainly by Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand and it is only then that Mr. Manoj Bhandari, put in appearance on behalf of legal representatives of original tenant, Sankal Chand, Hansraj and others. The said order dated 19.09.2012 is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - “Perused the process server report and office report dated 18.07.2012. According to said reports, when the notice of this Court were taken for service on the respondent No.2-Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand by the process server, he (respondent No.2-Hansraj) was reported to be out of station, therefore, the notices were sought be served by affixture on the conspicuous part of the suit premises, however, the elder brother of the respondent No.2 Hansraj restrained and obstructed the process server and, therefore, summons for 17.02.2012 have been returned by the process server with his report, counter signed by witnesses, one Ravi S/o Ashok Soni and another, Mukesh S/o Manchaji Mali, that in view of such obstruction, the notices could not be served. The present second appeal which is of the year 2008 has not been argued for admission for last four years and was/is in the process of service on the defendants-tenants, who are the legal representatives of the original defendant-tenant in the tenanted suit premises; and the matter is hanging fire in service upon the unserved respondents/defendants, who seems to be deliberately avoiding the service of summons. As per office report, it is also clear that service upon the respondent No.2-Hans Raj was deliberately avoided and the process server has not been allowed to affix the notice on the conspicuous part of the suit premises and was obstructed in the course of discharge of his official duties by the elder brother of Hans Raj. This prima-facie amounts to interference with the course of justice and therefor contempt of Court. Since, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents No.2-Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand, 3-Babu Lal S/o Sankal Chand and 4 Mana Ram S/o Sankal Chand, 5-Jassa Ram S/o Sankal Chand, 6-Shanta D/o Sankal Chand (who are the LR's of original defendant-tenant, Sankal Chand), therefore, service upon them is treated to be sufficient. The respondents No.2-Hans Raj S/o Sankal Chand and the respondent No.3-Babu Lal S/o Sankal Chand are directed to remain present in this Court on 21.09.2012. Put up on 21.09.2012 at 10.30 AM along-with S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.209/2008-LR's of Hasti Mal & Ors. Vs. Hans Raj & Ors.” 8. After admission of the second appeal, the matters were today taken up for final hearing along-with cross objection filed by the cross-objector, Bhura Ram, and the matters were heard finally today and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 9. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs/landlord, vehemently submitted that despite giving concurrent findings about the ownership and on the relationship of landlord-tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants, Sankal Chand, the learned lower appellate court below has grossly erred in reversing the well reasoned findings of the learned trial court on the question of material alterations in the suit property, bonafide necessity of the landlord and his family members, of which the landlord is the best judge, and also on the issue of sub-letting by the original tenant, Sankal Chand in favour of his real brother, Bhura Ram (cross objector). He also submitted that issue of title although irrelevant, was wrongly introduced by the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram on the basis of the alleged sale-deed executed in his favour by one Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh in the year 1968 and at no point of time till 1987, in the revenue suits filed by the predecessors in title of the present plaintiffs against said Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh, through whom the said Bhura Ram claims, which suit was contested by none other than Sankal Chand, but curiously enough, no such plea was ever raised before the court that Bhura Ram had purchased any part of the suit property involved in the present case; and on the basis of subletting of 3/4th portion of the suit premises measuring 1620 square yards, which was let out by owner, Pratapmal and Hastimal, as mentioned in the Rent-note (Ex.1), even when it was found by the plaintiff/landlord that Bhura Ram being the real brother, was running a workshop of carpenter in the name and style of M/s Vishwakarma Industries, they set up the said industry by subletting and impleaded said Bhura Ram as sub-tenant in the present suit filed in the year 1982. However, despite this, the learned lower appellate court erred in holding that there was no subletting by the original tenant, Sankal Chand in favour of his brother, Bhura Ram, who came in the possession of the said 3/4th portion of the suit premises on the basis of his own alleged title purchased through Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh and others, on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed in the year 1968 much after the sale-deed executed in favour of the predecessors of the present plaintiffs, who purchased the suit property from one Hukam Singh on 14.10.1949, who executed a sale-deed in favour of S/Sh. Mishrimal S/o Mawji and Hastimal S/o Mawji, for a plot of land ad-measuring 54' x 120', out of which, Sh. Mishrimal S/o Mawji, and Hastimal S/o Mawji, sold half portion of the land measuring 27' x 120' to Ummaid Mal S/o Khartaji, who in turn sold the same said portion of 27' x 120' to the plaintiff No.1-Hastimal S/o Kewalji on 20.11.1959; and the remaining half portion of 27' x 120' was sold by Sh. Mishrimal S/o Mawji, in favour of Pratapmal S/o Pukhraj, and thus in favour of two landlords, namely, S/Sh. Mishrimal S/o Mawji, in favour of Pratapmal S/o Pukhraj, and thus in favour of two landlords, namely, S/Sh. Hastimal S/o Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Pukhraj, the rent-note (Ex.1) was executed by the tenant, Sankal Chand S/o Nopaji Suthar on 09.03.1964, on the basis of which only the first suit being Suit No.8/1969 was also filed against original tenant, Sankal Chand for eviction and arrears of rent in which he admitted such tenancy. 10. While narrating the history of the said previous suit (Suit No.8/1969), Mr. Vikas Balia, submitted that while the learned Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal, decreed the suit on 14.11.1973 while specifically holding that the land in question was not agricultural land but the appellate court affirmed the said judgment of learned trial court and decreed the suit in favour of landlord on 25.02.1975 but the High Court allowed the appeal of the defendants on 23.08.1977 giving benefit of Section 13A of the Act of 1950 for the first default in payment of rent since Section 13A was introduced on the statute book on 29.09.1975, during the pendency of such appeal of the tenant before this Court; and that is why the second suit for eviction was filed by the landlord/plaintiffs on 01.05.1982 by the plaintiff No.1 Hastimal S/o Kewalji and plaintiff No.2-Jawantraj and the plaintiff No.3, Champalal, who had purchased the half portion from Pratapmal S/o Pukhraj on 23.07.1981. The present suit was filed on 01.05.1982 after serving a notice terminating the tenancy to Sankal Chand on 05.10.1981. 11. The learned trial court while deciding all the issues in favour of plaintiffs/landlord and the relevant findings issue-wise for which four specific questions of law have been framed by a coordinate bench of this Court, regarding material alterations, subletting, bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs, which are quoted below for reference from the judgment and eviction decree dated 18.07.2006. 12. 11. The learned trial court while deciding all the issues in favour of plaintiffs/landlord and the relevant findings issue-wise for which four specific questions of law have been framed by a coordinate bench of this Court, regarding material alterations, subletting, bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs, which are quoted below for reference from the judgment and eviction decree dated 18.07.2006. 12. The findings of the learned trial court in the order dated 18.07.2006 on the Issue No.1 as to whether tenancy created in favour of original tenant, Sankal Chand by the plaintiff No.1 Hastimal S/o Kewaji and plaintiff No.2, Jawantraj S/o Shivraj and the plaintiff No.3 Champalal S/o Jawantraj being purchase of half portion of the property from Pukhraj, are quoted herein below: - ^^15- mijksDr xokgku ds c;ku oknh o izfroknhx.k dh cgl ds la;qä v/;;u ds i’pkr ;g LIk”V gS fd loZizFke rks ;g mYys[k fd;k tkrk gS fd fook|d la-1 tks vius vki esa Li”V fojfpr gS fd oknh la-2 o 3 iSjk uEcj&1 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M+ ds vk/ks ds Lokeh gS rFkk vk/ks ds Lokeh oknh uEcj&1 gSA ;g vko’;d gS fd bl fook|d esa oknh la- 1 ds LokfEkRo ckcr mYys[k ugha gS] ijUrq bldk vFkZ okni= dh dye la-1 esa of.kZr rF;ks ls Li”V gS fd vk/ks Hkw[k.M+ ds Lokeh oknh la-1 o vk/ks Hkw[k.M ds la-2 o 3 gS ftuds }kjk gLrhey iq= ekoth ls gLRkhey dsoyth o izrkiey us igys Ø; fd;k Fkk ijUrq izrkiey ds LoxZokl ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku ds }kjk oknhx.k uEcj nks o rhu us 1981 es mä Hkw[k.M+ dk vk/kk Hkkx Ø; dj fy;k ftldh jftLVªh dh udy i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA izfroknhx.k us vo’; dgk fd la;qDr LokfeRo dk Hkw[k.M gS ;k la;qDr ‘kkeykrh LokfeRo dk Hkw[k.M+ gSA eSa bl lEcU/k esa ;g Li”V dj nsuk pkgrk gw¡ fd lEiw.kZ okn esa ,oa oknh }kjk lEiw.kZ lk{; esa ,d ‘kCn Hkh ;g dgha mYys[k ugh fd dfFkr fdjk;k’kqnk ifjlj ftldk o.kZu okni= dh dye la[;k 1 esa ¼,d esa½ of.kZr fd;k x;k gS dks oknhx.k la-1] 2 o 3 ds la;qä ‘kkeykrh LokfeRo dk gks ;k la;qä Lokeh gksA okni= dh dye la[;k&1 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M+ ftlds LokfeRo ckcr oknhx.k ds Åij Hkkj gS fd og muds vk/ks&vk/ks ds Lokeh gS ftldh jftLVªh dh udy i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA izfroknhx.k us bl fcUnq dks bl izdkj dgus dk iz;kl fd;k fd okni= dh dye la[;k&1 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M+ ds oknh UkEcj&1 o oknh uEcj nks o rhu la;qä Lokeh gks & bl izdkj bl lk{;] bl izdkj dk vfHkopu vkSj u gh bl izdkj dh rudh U;k;ky; ds }kjk fojfpr dh xbZ gSA oknhx.k us Hkh dgh ;g mYys[k ugh fd;k fd og fooknxzLr ifjlj ds la;qä LokfeRo ;k Lokeh gksA ;g vo’; i=koyh ij gS fd oknhx.k us fooknxzLr ifjlj dk la;qä :i ls nkok fd;k gS] ijUrq ;g Hkh fLFkfr Li”V gS fd oknhx.k uEcj&2 o 3 ,oa oknh uEcj&1 us i`Fkd& i`Fkd jftLVªh djkbZ gSA oknh uEcj&1 us rks lu~ 1959 esa rFkk izfroknhx.k uEcj nks o rhu us 1981 esa jftLVªh djokbZA 1981 esa izfroknhx.k uEcj&2 o 3 us iwoZ foØsrk izrkiey dh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku iq[kjkt oxSjg ls Ø; fd;kA ;g Hkh rF; i=koyh ij miyC/k gS fd fooknxzLr Iyk¡V 120 QqV xq.kk 27 QhV dk gLrhey iq= dsoypUn us rFkk 120 xq.kk 27 QhV dk izrkiey us Ø; fd;k Fkk mlesa ls izrkiey ds fgLls dk lEiw.kZ Hkw[k.M+ mldh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku us tkorjkt o pEikyky dks jftLVMZ foØ;&i= ls foØ; dj fn;kA eS ugh lksprk fd izfroknh la-7 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us fdl vk/kkj ij ;g fopkj O;ä fd;s fd dfFkr Hkw[k.M+ Lka;qä ‘kkeykrh LokfeRo dk gS] bl ‘kCn dk tUe muds }kjk fdl izdkj fd;k x;kA izfroknh la-1 ls 6 Hkh izfroknh la-7 ds dneksa ds pyrs gq, mDr dFkuksa dks nksgjk;k gSA oknhx.k us dgha Hkh ugh dgk fd dfFkr Hkw[k.M+ oknhx.k dk la;qä o ‘kkeykrh gksA la;qDr :i ls fdjk;k vo’; fn;k gS] ‘kkeykrh Ø; fd;k gqvk ugh gSA nksuks ds Hkkx fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij Øe’k% nf{k.k o mŸkj vFkkZr oknh la-1 dk nf{k.k dk o izfroknh la- 2 o 3 dk mŸkj dk Hkkx gSA izfroknh la-1 ls 6 us viuh lk{; esa ,slk dksbZ cspku nLrkost izLrqr ugh fd;k] ftlls izekf.kr gks fd oknxzLr ifjlj oknh uEcj&1 o oknh uEcj 2 o 3 d iwokZf/kdkfj;ksa us lkewfgr :i ls [kjhnk gksA ;g lR; gS fd ;g tehu ‘kkeykrh :i ls Ø; dh gqbZ ugh gSA oknhx.k la;qDr Lokeh ugha gSA nksuks dh jftLVªh vyx vyx le; ij vyx vyx o”kksZ esa gqbZ gSA izfroknh la-7 us Hkh bl ckr ij Hkkjh tksj fn;k fd la;qä ‘kkeykrh lEifŸk ugh gSA oknhx.k us ,slk dksbZ ‘kCn ugh dgkA izfroknx.k dh Loa; dh fnekxh mit gSA nksuks dh jftLVªh vyx vyx gqbZA oknhx.k ds Ø; djus ls iwoZ fooknxzLr ifjlj ds Lokeh gLrhey iq= ekoth Fks ftUgksus jftLVªh djkdj gLrhey o izrkiey dks foØ; fd;k rc Hkh foØ;&i= vyx&vyx Fkk la;qä LokfeRo dk ugh FkkA izrkiey dh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku us oknh uEcj 2 o 3 dks foØ; fd;kA izfroknh la-7 viuh cgl esa ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd oknhx.k ds nLrkost ls ;g izekf.kr gS fd oknh uEcj&1 lkadypUn (Sic! gLrhey½ us 120 QhV xq.kk 27 QhV dk ,d i`Fkd Hkw[k.M vius uke ls [kjhnk] ftldh [kjhndrkZ oknh uEcj&1 o mlds iq= gSA mä Hkw[k.M esa izrkiey [kjhndrkZ dh gSfl;r ls uke ugh gS vkSj muds }kjk oknh uEcj&2 o 3 dks foØ; fd;k tks ,d la;qä ‘kkeykrh LokfeRo dk ‘kCn mnxe fd;k ;g izfroknhx.k dh viuh nsu gSA oSls oknhx.k us okni= esa dgh mYys[k ugh fd;k u blh vk’k; dk vfHkopu fojfpr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh oknhx.k dh ,slh dksbZ lk{; gSA dqy feykdj ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd okn i= dh dye la[;k&1 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M+ oknh uEcj&2 o rhu mlds vk/ks fgLls ds Lokeh gS] ftldks muds }kjk fn-23-7-81 dks Ø; fd;k rFkk vk/ks fgLls ds Lokeh oknh uEcj&1 gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr o U;k;laxr izrhr gksrk gSA ;g U;k;ky; fdjk;k fu;a=.k csn[kyh vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuks ds rgr bl izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djrk gS ftlesa bl U;k;ky; dks Hkw[k.M ds LokfeRo ds ckjs es fu.kZ; djuk gh ugh gksrk gS fQj Hkh ;g fook|d fojfpr fd;k x;k gSA vr% mä izdkj ls bldk fuLrkj.k oknh ds i{k esa r; fd;k x;k gSA^^ 13. The findings of the trial court in the order dated 18.06.2006 on Issue No.2 regarding tenancy created under Ex.1 (Rent-note) dated 09.03.1964, is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^bldk Hkkj oknhx.k ij gSA dfFkr fook|d ds lEca/k esa oknhx.k us vius nkos es Li”V :Ik ls mYys[k fd;k fd oknh UkEcj&1 gLrhey ,oa izrkiey izfroknh uEcj&2 o 3 ds iwoZ foØsrk us izfroknh uEcj&1 ls 6 ds firk o ifr dks tfj;s fdjk;k fpÎh ds vk/kkj ij 9-3-64 dks fdjk;s ij fn;kA izfroknhx.k la- 1 ls 6 Hkh bl fcUnq dks Lohdkj djrs gS fd oknh gLrhey ,oa izrkiey us fn-9-3-64 dks tfj;s fdjk;k fpÎh Hkhueky LVs’ku jksM+ ij ,d Iyk¡V ftl ij cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj dkfct gSA lkadypUn us fdjk;k ij fy;k Fkk tks gLrhey ls fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk rFkk fdjk;k 13-50 iSls r; fd;k x;kA oknh us Hkh blh dFku dks viuh lk{; esa dgk fd oknhx.k dk ,d Iyk¡V LVs’ku jksM+ ij vk;k gqvk gS] ftlesa ls vk/kk fgLlk esjk o vk/kk fgLlk izrkiey dk Fkk tks 1964 esa lkadypUn dks fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk bldh fdjk;k fpÍh izn’kZ&1 gSa mä Iyk¡V dk vk/kk fgLlk izrkiey us [kjhnk tks tkorjkt us vc [kjhn fy;k gSA oknhx.k dh vksj ls mifLFkr lHkh xokgku us blh izdkj dh lk{; vnk dh fd gLrhey o izrkiey us 9-3-64 dks lkadypUn dks okni= dh dye la[;k&2 es of.kZr iM+kslksa ds e/; fLFkr Hkw[k.M+ fdjk;s ij fn;k FkkA izfroknhx.k la-1 ls 6 Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrs gSA izfroknh la-7 us dgk fd bldk Hkkj oknhx.k ij gS rFkk fuLrkj.k izfroknh la-1 ls 6 ds chp rFkk oknhx.k ds e/; gksuk gS] ysfdu izfroknh la-7 us oknxzLr Hkwfe [kjhnus ds ckn mDr fpÍh csvlj gks tkrh gS] blfy, bl rudh dh os Hkh foospuk djuk pkgrs gSA izfroknh la-7 dk dFku gS fd fdjk;k fpÍh izn’kZ&1 dh bckjr lkewfgr LokfeRo vf/kdkj ds rgr fdjk;s ij nsuk crkrh gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd oknh uEcj&1 dks dsoy ek= vius LokfeRo ds Hkw[k.M ckcr ekfydkuk vf/kdkj izkIr gksus ls oknh uEcj&1 vius Lora= Hkw[k.M 120 xq.kk 27 QqV vkjkth dk tks mlus gLrhey ekoth ls 1959 esa [kjhnk mlds vk/kkj ij cspku nLrkost tks mlds gd esa 1959 esa fy[kk x;k mlesa fyf[kr iM+kSl o uki dk Hkw[k.M+ oknh uEcj&1 fdjk;k nsus dk gd j[krk gSA bldk ;g Hkh dFku jgk gS fd oknhx.k us ;g izekf.kr ugh fd;k fd izn’kZ&2 esa of.kZr fdjk;k fpÍh es 120 xq.kk 27 QhV dk Hkw[k.M+ fdjk;s ij fn;k gksA eSa ;gka ;g Li”V djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd izfroknh uEcj&7 dk rdZ vius vki esa gh vLi”V gS] ftl O;fDr us tks tehu Ø; dh gS] mlds ml Hkw[k.M+ ij lEiw.kZ LokfeRo vf/kdkj iSnk gksrs gSA oknh la-1 us 120 xq.kk 27 QqV dk rFkk oknh la- 2 o 3 us 120 xq.kk 27 QqV dk Hkw[k.M+ Ø; fd;kA bl izdkj ;g Hkw[k.M+ 120 xq.kk 54 QqV dk gksdj lEiw.kZ Hkw[k.M+ ¼iwoZ esa izrkiey o gLrhey ds }kjk½ fdjk;s ij fn;k FkkA fdjk;k ij nsus dh fyf[kr fdjk;k fpÍh i=koyh ij miyC/k gS vkSj ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ftlesa oknhx.k dh vksj ls mifLFkr lEkLr xokgku us bl ckr dh iqf”V dh fd oknhx.k gLrhey o izrkipUn us okni= dh dye la[;k&2 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M+ lkadypUn ¼e`Ÿkd½ dks fn- 9-3-64 dks fdjk;s ij fn;k ftlds ys[kd o lk{kh oknhx.k ds xokgku Øe’k% ih-M+-3] ih-M++- 4 vkSj VkbfiLV ih-M-5 gSA oSls ;g mYys[k fd;k tkrk gS fd blh fooknxzLr ifjlj dks ysdj 8@69 eqdnek uEcj eqaflQ dksVZ Hkhueky esa is’k gqvk Fkk tks eqfLkQ dksVZ Hkhueky ds }kjk vo’;d [kkfjt fd;k Fkk ijUrq vihy U;k;ky; ds }kjk oknhx.k ds i{k esa fuLrkfjr fd;kA ml le; Hkh ;g fdjk;k nsuk Lo;a izfroknhx.k vFkkZr e`rd lkadypUn ds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k ftlds }kjk fdjk;k ysuk Lohdkj fd;kA mlds c;ku U;k;ky; esa ‘kiFk ij gq, Fks vkSj mlds okfjlku ds }kjk Hkh vc bldks Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk tks fdjk;k fpÍh e`Ÿkd lkadyPkUn ds }kjk oknhx.k gLrhey ,oa izrkiey ¼orZeku es oknh uEcj 2 ,oa 3½ ds gd esa fy[kh] ftldk dksbZ [k.Mu ugh gSA vr% bl rudh dk fuLrkj.k Hkh oknhx.k ds i{k es r; fd;k tkrk gS fd okni= dh dye la[;k&2 esa of.kZr iM+kSls esa fLFkr ifjlj dks oknh la- 1 ,oa izrkiey ds gd esa lkadypUn us fn-9-3-64 dks fdjk;k fpÍh fy[kh vkSj ml le; lkadypUn cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj FkkA mldh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj dkfct gSA^^ 14. The findings of the learned trial court on Issue No.4, regaring material alteration in the suit property read as under: ^^mijksä lEkLr xokgku ds c;kuksa dk ,d lkFk foospu djus ij o oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k ds }kjk fyf[kr i`Fkd&i`Fkd cgl dk la;qä :i ls v/;;u djus ds i’pkr ;g LIk”V gS fd tc ifjlj 1964 esa fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk rc mlesa ,d Nijk cuk gqvk FkkA ml le; ;fn vkSj dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z bl ifjlj esa gqvk rks mldk mYys[k Hkh fuf’pr :i ls fdjk;k fpÍh esa vo’; gksrk] D;ksafd ml le; bl ifjlj ckcr fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn ugh Fkk rFkk ml le; dksbZ nqHkkZouk Hkh ugh FkhA izfroknhx.k us rks ;gka rd dgk fd Nijk oknhx.k ds dCts esa ugh jgsxk] bldk vFkZ Hkh Li”V gksrk gS fd vkSj dksbZ fuekZ.k ml le; fd;k gqvk ugh FkkA bl izdj.k ds iwoZ es 8@69 eqdnek gqvk] mlesa Hkh dsoy ek= ,d Nijs dks ysdj gh dgk x;k fd Nijk oknh ds dCts esa ugh FkkA blds foijhr oknh us viuh lk{; es dgk fd fooknxzLr ifjlj esa iDds fuekZ.k Nijk] dejs] cjk.M+s] V~;wcosy] gS.MiEi vksjMh HkfÍ;ka vkfn cukbZ gqbZ gS ftldks Lo;a izfroknh Hkh Lohdkj djrs gSA izfroknhx.k la- 1 ls 6 ds }kjk nch gqbZ gqcku ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ifjlj es mDr dk;Z fd;k gqvk gS] ijUrq ;g dgk fd ;g LkHkh vLFkkbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z gS] ijUrq izfroknh la- 7 tks Hkwjk dk fof/kd laj{kd dh gSfl;r ls U;k;ky; esa mifLFkfr vk;k vkSj mlus dgk fd eSus o galjkt us fooknxzLr esa iDdk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k RkFkk ekSds ij tkdj ge nksuks us ns[kk fd ;g dk;Z /kjkry ls ubZ lhesaV dh bZVksa ls iDdk dejk cuok;k rFkk tehu ds vUnj fuosyh Fkh ijUrq ;gh dgk fd iqjkuh [kjkc gksus ls u;k cuk;k rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd iqjkus njokts Nr ds irjM+S] f[kM+dh oXkSjg lHkh galjkt us yxok;s gS ijUrq ;g LkHkh [kjkc gks tkus ls yxok;s gSA ;g Hkh bl xokg us dgk fd Nijs gS.M+iEi fuekZ.k lHkh bl ifjlj esa gS ijUrq esjs firkth us yxok;s gSA bl izdkj ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd tks fuekZ.k dk;Z gqvk gS og LFkkbZ izd`fr dk gksdj oknh }kjk izLrqr okni= esa mä lHkh dkj.kksa dks crk;k gqvk gSA mä lHkh vk/kkjks ij fd mä fuekZ.k dk;Z LFkkbZ izd`fr dk fd;k gqvk gS] ftldh i`f”V izfroknhx.k ds }kjk dh gSA ;gk ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr o U;k;laxr gS fd izfroknh la-7 Hkwjk bl izdj.k esa ijhf{kr ugh gqvk] dkj.k ;g crk;k x;k fd mldh fnekxh gkyr Bhd ugh gS] mldh vksj ls mifLFkr mlds yM+ds izfroknh la-10 us lk{; esa dgk fd ;g lHkh fuekZ.k dk;Z esjs firkth us cuk;s FksA vc ;g Li”V djuk vko’;d gS fd izfroknh la-7 Hkwjk dks bl ifjlj esa fuekZ.k dk;Z djus dk D;k vf/kdkj Fkk tcfd Lo;a e`rd lkadypUn }kjk eqdnek uEcj 8@69 es Li”V dgk fd lu~ 1964 es fy[kh xbZ fdjk;k fpfÎ ds vk/kkj ij og fooknxzLr ifjlj ds fdjk;snkj gSA izfroknh ds okfjlku Hkh mDr dFku dks vkt Hkh Lohdkj djrs gS fd fdjk;k fpÎh ds vuqlkj og vkt Hkh dkfct gS] ijarq xokg Mh-M-1 galjkt us vo’; dgk fd fooknxzLr uksgjs ij esjs HkkbZ rFkk Hkwjkjke o mlds yM+ds igys jgrs Fks vkSj Hkwjkjke ds yM+ds dke djrs FksA Hkwjkjke cw<+k gks x;k gS] vc dke ugh djrk gSA uksgjk fdjk;s ij fy;k mlds rhu pkj lky ds ckn ls ml le; Hkwjkjke dke djrs FksA esjs firkth us vkil esa fookn ugh djus ds fy;s muds dke vUnj djus ds fy;s fn;k vkSj ml Iyk¡V ij rhu pkSFkkbZ fgLls ij Hkwjkjke dkfct gSA ,d pkSFkkbZ Hkkx ij eS dkfct gw¡ vkSj dksbZ dkfct ugh gSA tc ;g fLFkfr Li”V gS fd lkadypUn dks fooknxzLr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k rc fdjk;k fpÎh tks lu~ 1964 esa fy[kh xbZ Fkh] mldks Lohdkj fd;k x;kA mlh fdjk;k fpÎh ds vk/kkj ij vkt rd lakdypUn ds okfjlku cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj dkfct gS rc nkSjkus fdjk;snkjh lkadypUn ds }kjk Hkwjkjke dks fdl vk/kkj ij dfFkr ifjlj dk Lokeh gksuk dgrk rks lakdypUnz dks izFke dŸkZO; Fkk fd og fdjk;s’kqnk Hkw&Lokeh dks bl ckr dh lwpuk nsrk fd Hkwjkjke us mä ifjlj dks Ø; djrk crk;k gS] vr% D;k eS bls bl ifjlj eSa dk;Z djus ds fy;s vf/kd`r da: ijUrq ,slk ugh] D;ksafd lkadypUn o Hkwjk nksuksa lxs HkkbZ Fks vkSj blh otg ls vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij 1964 dh fdjk;k&’kqnk fy[kh fpÎh ds ifjlj esa lkadypUn us HkwLokeh dh lgefr ds fcuk bl O;fä dk vUnj vkus dh btktr nh vkSj og mlesa vkdj dke djus yxk] bldh iqf”V Loa; Mh-M-1 us dh gSA tc ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk mlds rhu pkj lky ckn Hkwjk vk;k vkSj mlus vius vkidks Hkw&Lokeh crk;k rc lkadypUn us Hkw&Lokeh dh lgefr ds fcuk Hkwjk dks vius dkj[kkus esa dke djus dh btktr ns nh vkSj Hkwjk orZeku es rhu pkSFkkbZ bl tehu ij dkfct gS rFkk lkadypUn ,d pkSFkkbZ tehu ij vkSj oknh us Li”V dgk fd Hkwjk ,d f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gS vkSj Hkwjk ls lkadypUn ds okfjlku fdjk;k ysrs gS vkSj nksuksa dh feyhHkxr ls nqfHkZlaf/k ds vk/kkjk ij ,d fdjk;snkj us nwljs O;fä dks ekfyd crkdj izos’k djkdj mlds bPNkuqlkj fuekZ.k dk;Z djus dh btktr ns nh vkSj fdjk;snkj dk dFku gS fd eSus dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z ugh djk;k tks fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k og izfroknh la[;k&7 Hkwjk us tks fd f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gS CkgSfl;r Lokeh dh rjg ls fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k gS] ftldks djokus dk mls dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh rFkk ftldks mä ifjlj esa cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj ;k Hkw&Lokeh izos’k djus rd dk vf/kdkj ugh D;ksafd bl izdj.k esa HkwLokeh ds }kjk e`Ÿkd lkadypUn dks ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;kA ;fn mlesa Lokeh lEcU/kh fdl izdkj dh dksbZ ckr mRiUu gqbZZ rks mldh tkudkjh fdjk;snkj }kjk Hkw&Lokeh dks nsuh vko’;d Fkh ijUrq vkilh feyhHkxr ls Hkwjk us 1968 ds foØ; i= ds vk/kkj ij bl ifjlj esa izos’k fd;k ftlds vk/kkj lkadypUnz o Hkwjk nksuks lxs HkkbZ FksA bl izdkj Li”V gksrk gS fd tks fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gqvk gS og oknh gLrhey ,oa izrkiey ds Øsrk oknhx.k la[;k&2 o 3 tks orZeku Hkw&Lokeh dh fcuk lgefr ds mä ifjlj esa fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS tks fd xokg Mh-M- 10 Lohdkj djrk gSA oknh dh vksj ls mifLFkfr LkHkh xokgku us bl dFku dh iqf”V dh gSA izfroknh la-1 ls 6 us viuh ftjg esa dsoy ;gh dgk fd fuekZ.k dk;Z fdl lky fd;k] dc fd;k mYys[k ugh gS& fd;k x;k fuekZ.k dk;Z rkfRod ifjorZu dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugh vkrk gSA xokg ih-M+ 1 us viuh ftjg esa dgk fd gS.MiEi] HkÎh o dejs dc fuekZ.k djk;s] eq>s irk ughA blls Li”V gksrk gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z dc djk;k ;g rkfRod ifjorZu dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugh vkrk gSA ;g Hkh dgk fd iwoZ ds eqdnes esa ekSdk ns[kk rc fujh{k.k fjiksVZ izn’kZ&9 o 10 izLrqr gqbZ ml le’ fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gqvk FkkA vr% vc ;g fuekZ.k dk;Z dk vf/kdkj R;kx fn;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa Hkh ;g dguk i;kZIr gS fd iwoZ dk okn dsoy ek= fdjk;k vnk;xh rd lhfer Fkk] vFkkZr O;frØe ij vk/kkfjr Fkk vkSj ;g okn ml fcUnq dks NksM+dj ‘ks”k vU; mijksä fcUnqvksa ds vk/kkj ij gSA izfroknh la- 1 ls 6 us vius fuekZ.k dk;Z dh iqf”V viuh fyf[kr cgl es dh fd U;k;ky; ds }kjk 1969 esa tc ekSdk ns[kk rc mlesa pkj Nijs] dejs dk fuekZ.k Q’kZ vkfn rFkk Nijksa dh Nr crkbZ xbZ FkhA blls Hkh Li”V gksrk gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z fdjk;s ij nsus ds i’pkr Hkw&Lokeh dh lgefr ds fcuk fd;s x;s gSA izfroknh la-7 us dgk fd tks fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k x;k gS og izn’kZ 9] 10 ds vuqlkj iwoZ esa U;k;ky; ds }kjk tc ekSdk ns[kk rc cus gq, Fks vkSj ;g fuekZ.k dk;Z izfroknh la-7 us fd;k gS] blfy;s fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy;s vuqefr dh vko’;drk ugh FkhA blds lEcU/k esa foLrkj ls o.kZu Åij fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% dqy feykdj ;g LIk”V gS fd tc ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k vkSj tc ;g eqdnek 1982 esa gqvk] ml le; rd fuekZ.k dk;Z ckcr orZeku Hkw&Lokeh ,oa iwoZ Hkw&Lokeh dh lgefr ds fcuk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k x;k gSA izfroknh la-7 tks cgSfl;r ekfyd crk jgk gS] mldks e`Ÿkd lkadypUn ds }kjk feyhHkxr o nqfHkZlaf/k ds vk/kkj ij viuk HkkbZ gksus ds fdjk;k ‘kqnk ifjlj esa crkSj Hkw&Lokeh izos’k djk fn;k vkSj nksuks us feydj LFkkbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS] ftldks djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ughA Loa; xokg Mh-M- 10 us Li”V dgk fd fuekZ.k dk;Z LFkkbZ izd`fr dk gS vkSj LFkkbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z tc Hkw&Lokeh dh lgefr ds fcuk fd;k tkrk gS] rc og rkfRod ifjorZu dh ifjHkk”kk ea vkrk gSA vr% fook|d dk fuLrkj.k oknhx.k ds i{k es r; fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 15. The findings of the learned trial court on Issue No.5, viz. The findings of the learned trial court on Issue No.5, viz. subletting of the suit property reads as under: - ^^mijksä lEkLr xokgku] i{kdkjku }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr cgl ds rdksZ dk xgjkbZ ls v/;;u fd;kA ;gka ;g mYys[k fd;k tkrk gS fd bl ckr ij dksbZ fookn ugha gS fd 9-3-64 dks tks fdjk;k fpÎh fu”ikfnr gqbZ og gLrhey ,oa izrkiey ds i{k esa lkadypUn ds }kjk fu”ikfnr dh Fkh rFkk izrkiey dh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku us mlds gd dh tehu dks oknh la-2 o 3 dks foØ; dj fn;kA bl izdkj oknh la-1 o oknh la- 2 o 3 lkadypUn ds HkwLokeh gq, vkSj bu Hkw&Lokfeksa ds }kjk izfroknh lakdypUn dks okni= dh dye la[;k&1 esa of.kZr iM+kSlksa ds e/; ds ifjlj dks fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&2 esa of.kZr ‘krksZ ds vk/kkj ij fdjk;s ij fn;k rFkk bl ifjlj dks crkSj fdjk;snkj gksuk lkadypUn e`rd 8@69 ds eqdnes esa Lohdkj djrk gS] ftlds c;ku i=koyh ij crkSj nLrkost is’k gq, gS vkSj mldh e`R;q ds i’pkr mlds okfjlku izfroknh la-1 ls 6 us ;g c[kwch Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lkadypUn oknhx.k ds fdjk;snkj Fks vkSj mudh e`R;q ds i’pkr fooknxzLr ifjlj ij og crkSj fdjk;snkj dkfct gSA blds lkFk gh ;g Hkh rF; lkeus vk;k fd Jhjke o Jhn;ky dks Hkh fooknxzLr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k ftlesa xokg uwjeksgEen Mh-M- 3 us Li”V fd;k fd Jhjke o Jhn;ky ogka ij Lo;a vius Lrj ij dk;Z djrs Fks rFkk muds gSYij vyx j[ks gq, Fks] ijUrq bl ckr dks vLohdkj dj fn;k fd mudks ru[okg dkSu nsrk FkkA bl ckr esa dksbZ fookn ugh jgk gS fd Jhjke o Jhn;ky bl nqdku ij O;fDrxr gSfl;r ls dk;Z ugh djrs gksA D;ksafd budh mifLFkfr lHkh xokgku us crkbZ gSA oknh ,oa izfroknh lHkh xokg us dgk fd Jhjke o Jhn;ky ;gka dke djrs FksA ;g ,d vyx ckr gS fd izfroknh dh vksj ls mifLFkr xokg Mh-M- 1 us dgk fd 15&20 fnu dk;Z fd;k tcfd mlh ds xokg us dgk fd mUgksus 2&3 lky rd dk;Z fd;k] Hkys gh fdrus gh fnu dk;Z fd;k gks ijUrq ;fn O;fDr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj esa LOkra= gSfl;r ls fdjk;snkj dh vuqefr ls dk;Z djrk gS rks og f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gSA tgka rd Hkwjk izfroknh la-7 ds f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gksus dk iz’u gS] blds laEcU/k esa oknh us viuh lk{; esa bl ckr dks Li”V :i ls dgus dk iz;kl fd;k fd oknhx.k us lkadypUn dks fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ fdjk;s ij fn;kA mlds pkj o”kZ ckn Hkwjkjke us vkdj dgk fd og bl Hkw[k.M+ dk cgSfl;r ekfyd gS vkSj lkadypUn us fookn ugh gksus dk dkj.k crkdj fooknxzLr ifjlj esa rhu pkSFkkbZ fgLls ij mls Lo;a dk;Z djus ds fy;s vf/kd`Rk dj fn;k tcfd oknhx.k ds }kjk fooknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djus dk uksfVl izfroknhx.k dks fn;k ijUrq izfroknhx.k us vius tokc esa dgha ;g mYys[k ugha fd;k fd Hkwjkjke ds }kjk mUgsa cgSfl;r ekfyd gksuk crkdj tcju edku ij dkfct gks x;k gks ;k dk;Z dj jgk gS tcfd fdjk;snkj dk ;g dŸkZO; Fkk fd og ,slh ckr Hkw&Lokeh dks crkrk ijUrq bl izdj.k esa fLFkfr foijhr gS fd fdjk;snkj us mifdjk;snku tks fd izfroknh lkadypUn dk lxk HkkbZ Fkk ds }kjk vius vkidks Hkw&Lokeh crkus ij fdjk;k’kqnk ifjlj dk rhUk pkSFkkbZ Hkkx mls ns fn;kA tgak rd mifdjk;snkjh dk iz’u gS] ;g fLFkfr Li”V gksrh gS fd tc ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k mlds rhu pkj lky ckn lkadypUn ewy fdjk;snkj ds }kjk Hkwjk dks ifjlj esa dke djus fn;k] cSBus fn;k vkSj mlds dk;Z djus ds vk/kkj ;g crk;k fd Hkwjk us dgk Fkk fd og Hkw&Lokeh gS vkSj fookn u gks blfy, fdjk;k’kqnk ifjlj ftldk fdjk;k rks izfroknh la[;k&1 vnk djrk gS] ijUrq izfroknh la-7 fdl gSfl;r ls izfroknh ds fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj esa jg jgk gS tcfd izfroknh la-1 ls 5 ds firk lkadypUn dks iwj Iyk¡V ftldk o.kZu okni= dh dye la[;k&1 of.kZr fd;k gS fdjk;s ij fn;kA tgak rd izfroknh ds xokgku ds >wB cksyus dk iz’u gS] izfroknh ds }kjk izLrqr tokc esa mYys[k fd;k fd fo’odekZ b.M+LVªht ds uke dksbZ cksMZ ugha yxk;k vkSj u gh ml ij fo’odekZ b.M+LVªht ds izksijkbZVj Hkwjkjke uksikth dk fy[kk gqvk gS tcfd Lo;a izfroknh la-7 ds }kjk izLrqr tokc esa mYys[k fd;k fd gk¡ bl izdkj dk cksM+Z yxk;k gqvk gS vkSj izfroknh la- 1 ls 6 us ekSdk ns[kdj mls gVk fn;kA ;g nksuks vkil esa feyhHkxr dk vk/kkjk gSA izfroknh la- 1 ls 6 blfy, euk djrs gS fd mifdjk;snkjh lkfcr u gks vkSj izfroknh la- 7 dk blfy, dFku gS fd og bl ifjlj esa cgSfl;r Lokeh mifLFkr vkosA blds lkFk gh tgak rd QksVks dk iz’u gS] i=koyh ij fooknxzLr ifjlj ds QksVks is’k gq, gS] ftlesa oknhx.k us dgk fd ;g fooknxzLr ifjlj ds QksVks ekSd ij eksguyky LVqfM+;ksa okys us tkdj [khaps rFkk ;g fooknxzLr ifjlj ds gh QksVks gS ijUrq izfroknh us nch tqcku esa Lohdkj fd;k fd ;g lgh gS fd ;g QksVks fooknxzLr ifjlj ds gSA oknh ds xokg us ftjg esa Hkh bl ckr dh iqf”V dh fd eSaus cksMZ yxkus ds vk/kkj ij o Hkwjkjke dks ogka ij ns[kus ds vk/kkj ij lcysV ekukA cksMZ dk v/;;u fd;k] cksMZ ij Li”V :i ls fo’odekZ b.MLVªht ds izksijkbVj Hkwjkjke uksikth fy[kk gqvk gS] ijUrq Hkwjkjke o uksikth us Hkh mä IykWV dks vkxs fdjk;s ij ns j[kk gSA blh otg ls og mä ifjlj ij dke ugh djrs gSA oSls ;g rF; i=koyh ij ugha gS] ijUrq Hkwjkjke iq= uksikth ds }kjk rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx ij dCtk djuk o mlds Loa; ds }kjk ekSds ij dksbZ dke ugh djus x;s vkSj fdlh u fdlh dk dk;Z djus ds fy;s ifjlj fn;k gqvk gSA xokg Mh-M- 1 us viuh ftjg esa dgk fd eq>s irk ugh fd ;g igys esjs dkdk Hkwjk us bl IykWV ds ckgj fo’odekZ b.MLVªht izksijkbVj Hkwjk uksikth dk cksMZ yxk;k gksA tc tokcnkos esa izfroknh la- 7 Loa; Lohdkj djrs gS vkSj ;g Hkh vkxs blh dFku dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd izn’kZ&18 QksVks okyks IykWV esjs o esjs firkth ds ikl fdjk;s ij fiNys 34 lky ls gS vkSj bl iwjs IykWV dk iwjk fdjk;k 13-50@& :i;s ekgokjh nj ls nsrs gS rc tc izfroknh la-1 ls 6 fooknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k nsrs gS rc Hkwjkjke dk cksMZ fdl gSfl;r ls crkSj izksijkbVj fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj ij yxk;kA ;g RkHkh yxk;k tk ldrk gS tc ;k rks ;g Lo;a Hkwjkjke oknhx.k dk fdjk;snkj gks ;k izfroknhx.k la[;k ,d ls Ng dk fdjk;snkj gks ;g rks fLFkfr Li”V gS fd oknhx.k la-1 ls 6 dk ;g fdjk;snkj ugha gS vkSj vizR;{k :i ls ;g izfroknhx.k la- 1 ls 6 dk fdjk;snkj gS vkSj budh vkilh feyhHkxr dh otg ls og Hkwjkjke ,d foØ; i= ysdj lkeus vk;k vkSj dgk fd ;g Hkwjkjke vkSj iq[kjkt nksuks us feydj Ø; fd;k gS ijUrq >wB detksj gksrk gS] blh otg ls i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkost QksVks izfr tks Hkwjkjke ds i{k esa fnukad 30-10-68 dks twBflag oxSjg us fu”ikfnr dh mlesa Hkwjkjke o iq[kjkt dks foØ; djuk nLrkost cspku esa fy[kk;k ij nLrkost fy[kkus okys Hkwjk o fot;flag jktiwr crk;k x;k gSA ;g fot;flag jktiwr dkSu O;fDr] bldk uke nLrkost ds ewy Hkkx esa Hkh of.kZr fd;k ijUrq VkbZi ds }kjk mldks dkV fn;k vkSj mlds Åij iq[kjkt oYn iszeth vksloky fy[kk x;kA bl izdkj ;g foØ; i= tks izfroknh la-7 ds }kjk is’k fd;k gS lansg Hkjk vkSj csukeh nLrkost izrhr gksrk gS] D;ksafd bl izdj.k esa izfroknh la-1 ls 6 o izfroknh la-7 vkil esa dkdk Hkrhtk gksdj fudVre fj’rsnkj gS vkSj blh fj’rsnkjh dk uktk;t Qk;nk mBkdj izfroknh la-1 ls 6 us viuh ekSu Lohd`fr ;k lkadypUn dh ekSu Lohd`fr ds i’pkr izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke dks xqipqi rjhds ls fookn gksus dk Hk; crkdj Hkwjkjke dks rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx ij dCtk djk fn;k vkSj og ml Hkkx ij cgSfl;r Lokeh crk jgk gS tcfd ;g fLFkfr Li”V gS fd tc igys foØ; i= oknhx.k ds i{k esa gqvk vkSj ;g foØ; i= tc rd fujLr ugh dj fn;k tkrk gS rc rd nwljk foØ; i= lEifŸk vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds rgr Lor% gh ‘kwU; gS] mldks fujLr djkus dh ;k mlds l)kfod gksus dk fopkj gh xyr gS] D;ksafd i=koyh ij tks foØ; i= Hkwjk us is’k fd;k og vius vkiesa gh xyr gSA ;fn okLro esa ;g nLrkost izfrQy ds lkFk fu”ikfnr gqvk gksrk rks fuf’pr gh Hkwjk ds lkFk iq[kjkt vksloky Hkh vius vkidks i{kdkj cuus dk nkok djrk fd og Hkh bl lEifŸk esa crkSj Lokeh gS] mldks ekSu jguk D;k n’kkZrk gS] ;g vius vki esa Li”V gSA Hkwjk vdsyk crkSj Lokeh dSls vius vkidks fooknxzLRk ifjlj dk crk jgk gS] ijUrq okLro esa ;g ,d “kM+;a=dkjh jpk gqvk nLrkost gSA okLro esa 9-3-64 dks tks fdjk;k fpÎh fy[kh xbZ mlds fdjk;snkj lkadypUn Fks RkFkk Hkw&Lokeh gLrhey o izrkiey Fks] ijUrq izrkiey us vius fgLLks dh tehu 27-3-81 dks oknhx.k la-2 o 3 tkaorjkt o pEikyky dks foØ; dj nh rc ls os mä ifjlj ds Lokeh gks x;sA ;gak ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr gS fd fdjk;snkjh ds ekeys esa U;k;ky; dks VkbVy ds ckjs esa Hkh fopkj djus dh vko’;drk ugha gSA ;gak rks dsoy Hkw&Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/kks dks ns[kk tkrk gS vkSj Loa; izfroknhx.k la-1 ls 6 oknhx.k ds fdjk;snkj ekurs gS vkSj fdjk;’kqnk ifjlj esa Hkwjkjke dh mifLFkfr ,d f’kdeh fdjk;snkjh ds :i esa gS Hkys gh ;g vius vki eas izfroknhx.k dh nqfHkZlaf/k ds vk/kkj ij] feyhHkxr ds vk/kkj ij ;k tehu gM+ius dh fu;r ls vius vkidks Hkw&Lokeh crk;k ;k >xM+s dk [krjk crkdj dkfct djk;k gks ijUrq Loa; fdjk;snkj izfroknh la-1 ls 6 dh vksj ls mifLFkr xokgku us Li”V dgk fd ge oknhx.k ds fdjk;snkj gS vkSj fdjk;snkj dk vk/kkj fdjk;k fpÎh gS vkSj fdjk;k fpÎh esa tks LkEifŸk Hkw&Hkkx crkSj fdjk;snkj izfroknhx.k la-1 ls 6 ds }kjk oknhx.k ds gd esa fy[kh xbZ gSA bl izdkj oknhx.k mä lEifŸk ds Hkw& Lokeh gS vkSj izfroknh la[;k&1 ls 6 fdjk;snkj rFkk izfroknh la-7 f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gS rFkk Jhjke o Jhn;ky us vYi le; ds fy;s crkSj fdjk;snkj mifLFkr jgs] ijUrq muds }kjk lEHkor% okni= izLrqr gksus ds i’pkr csn[ky dj fn;k gksA vr% miyC/k lk{; ,oa nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; lkeus vkrs gS fd fooknxzLr ifjlj ds Hkw&Lokeh oknhx.k gS rFkk izfroknx.k la- 1 ls 6 fdjk;snkj rFkk izfroknh la-7 mifdjk;snkj gS] ftls izfroknhx.k la- 1 ls 6 us fdjk;k’kqnk ifjlj ftldk o.kZu okni= dh dye la[;k&1 esa of.kZr fd;k gS] ftlds dqN Hkkx ugh vfirq rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx dks Hkwjkjke dks dkfct djk fn;k gS] oknhx.k lkfcr djus ds lQy jgs gSA vr% bl fook|d dk fuLrkj.k Hkh oknhx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 16. The finding of the learned trial court on Issues No.7 and 9 with respect to bonafide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiffs/landlord, is quoted herein below: ^^mijksä leLr xokgku ds c;kuksa dk ,d lkFk foospu djus ij ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd fooknxzLr ifjlj ftldks izfroknh la-1 ls 6 ds firk lkadypUn dks fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk vkSj mlesa lkadypUn ;k izfroknh la-1 ls 6 dh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij mä ifjlj ij izfroknh la[;k&7 dk rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx ij dCtk gSA ;g rF; Hkh lkeus vk;k fd e`rd lkadypUn ds nks yM+ds jkelhu esa eksVj fjokbf.M+x o ySFk e’khu dk djrs gSA ;g Hkh RkF; Li”V :i ls lkeus vk;k fd e`rd lkadypUn dk ,d yM+dk tks ckcwyky gSA mldks ,d edku jkuhokM+k jksM+ ij gksdj mlds vkxs 25 xq.kk 30 QhV dh txg gSA blds lkFk ;g Hkh rF; lkeus vk;k fd fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds ikl izfroknh dk ,d jgoklh; edku gSA ;g Hkh rF; lkeus vk;k fd xokg Mh-M- 1 dk ,d yM+dk lwjr esa dk;Z djrk gSA bl izdkj izfroknhx.k ds ikl mä LFkku gS blds foijhr oknhx.k dh tgka rd l)koukiwoZd fooknxzLr ifjlj ds vko’;drk gS ,d rks oknh la-1 ftlesa ;g nkok fd;k ml le; mlds yM+ds dh mez 30] 20] 13 Fkh tks vkt fu.kZ; ds le; djhc djhc 30 o”khZ;] 45 o”khZ; ;k 50 o”kZ ds djhc rFkk 13 o”khZ; iq= Hkh 30 lky iwjs dj fn;s gksaxs ijUrq fooknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh ugh gksus dh otg ls ;g rF; lkeus vk;k fd mldk ,d yM+dk cSaxyksj es etnwjh djrk gS vkSj nwljs D;k dk;Z djrs gS] blds ckjs es i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ vkSj oknh la[;k&1 gLrhey dh e`R;q gks xbZ vkSj ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugh vkbZ fd mlds Hkhueky esa fooknxzLr IykWV ds vykok vkSj dksbZ IykWV gks ;k jgoklh; edku gksA izfroknh us vius tokcnkos dh dye la[;k&6 esa mYys[k fd;k fd oknh ds ikl 8 dejs okyk LFkku gS] ijUrq nLrkosth lk{; dk vHkko gSA dsoy izfroknh us ekSf[kd :i ls dFku dgk vkSj oknh us vLohdkj fd;kA e`rd gLrhey ds }kjk ;g vo’; dgk fd ckyh esa mldk edku vo’; Fkk tks ck<+ vk tkus ls cg x;k vkSj og tks/kkokl esa fdjk;s ds edku esa jgdj diM+s dk O;kikj djrk Fkk ijUrq cPpks dh ‘kS{kf.kd O;oLFkk dk vHkko Fkk D;ksafd tks/kkokl esa izkFkfed Ldwy gh FkkA fo}ku izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us ;g vo’; dgk fd Hkhueky esa tSu Nk=kokl gS] tgka ij mlds cPpks dks j[kk tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa ;gh dguk mfpr gS fd tc oknh ds ikl Lo;a dk futh Hkw[k.M+ gks vkSj og vius cPpks dks fdjk;s ij ns D;k mfpr gSA oknh la[;k 2 o 3 ckcr pEikyky us dgk fd mlds uke dk bl IykWV ds vykok vkSj dksbZ Hkw[k.M+ Hkhueky esa ugh gSA og Åa>k esa vo’; O;kikj djrk gS rFkk 20 fnu ogha jgrk gS ijUrq ogkW ij fdjk;s ij jgrk gS] mldh ‘kkjhfjd chekfj;ka vyx gSA mldk ,d yM+dk gS ftldk ,d edku Hkhueky esa vo’;d gS ijUrq og mlls vyx jgrk gS ;g Hkh dgus dk iz;kl fd;k fd mlds vkSj Hkh edku nqdku gS] ijUrq mldh iqf”V rks ugh gqbZ ijUrq Lo;a izfroknh us gh dgk fd og fdjk;s ij gS tc og fdjk;s ij gS rc ;g oknh dh bPNk ij gS fd og dkSu lk ifjlj [kkyh djok;sA izfroknh ds }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd ;fn ;g ifjlj [kkyh gksrk gS rks mUgsa T;knk dfBukbZ gksxh D;ksafd mlds firk us cM+h dfBukbZ ls dkj[kkuk yxk;kA mijksä rF;ksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd tc oknhx.k dk Lo;a dk IykWV Hkhueky esa gS Hkys gh oknh la-3 vgenkckn esa /kU/kk djrk gks vkSj mls Hkhueky esa Hkh t:jr gksA oknh e`rd gLrhey ds Hkhueky ds dksbZ LFkku ugha gS vkSj tks/kkokl gS vkSj og tks/kkokl esa jgrk Fkk rc mldks bl Hkw[k.M+ dh l[r vko’;drk FkhA ;g vo’; gS fd tkaorjkt us vius gd dks vius yM+ds pEikyky ds i{k es tfj;s bdjkj fu”ikfnr fd;k gSA vr% tkaorjkt dh vko’;drk ugh gS ijUrq oknh la- 1 o 3 dks vius oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dh vko’;drk gS ;g ,d fHkUu ckr gS fd ;fn ;g Hkh eku fy;k tkos fd oknhx.k ds ikl dkQh lkjh Hkwfe IykWV ;k edku gS rc Hkh oknhx.k dks vius LFky dk fu.kZ; djus dk vf/kdkj Lo;a gSA fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds rgr ;g fLFkfr Li”V gS fd Hkw&Lokeh viuh vko’;drkvksa ds fy;s gh Lo;a loZJs”B U;k;k/kh’k gSA bl fl)kUr ds rgr ;fn oknhx.k ds ikl dbZ lkjs Hkw[k.M+ edku Hkh gks rks Hkh og viuh bPNkuqlkj vius Hkw[k.M+ dh vis{kk dj ldrk gS [kkyh djk ldrk gS D;ksafd oknhx.k us ;g IykWV jsyos LVs’ku o cl LVS.M+ ds e/; Ø; fd;k gSA tgka rd rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS] oknhx.k dks bl Hkw[k.M+ dh tc vko’;drk gS rc rqyukRed dfBukbZ mlds i{k esa gSA blds Bhd foijhr foi{kh dh tgka rd dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS Lo;a foi{khx.k la[;k 1 ls 6 ds vuqlkj gh mUgsa tks ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k mldk rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx mlds izfroknh la[;k&7 Hkwjk dks dCts esa ns fn;k tks oknhx.k ds vuqlkj f’kdeh fdjk;snkj gS ftldk foLRk`r fooj.k fook|d la[;k&5 esa fd;k tk pqdk gS tc izfroknh la[;k&1 ls 6 dks fooknxzLr ifjlj dh rqyUkkRed :i ls ;k okLro esa vko’;drk Fkh rc mUgksusa fdl fopkj ls vius dks fdjk;s fn;s gq, ifjlj esa ls rhu pkSFkkbZ ifjlj Hkwjk dks ns fn;k vkSj og Hkh Hkwjk ds bl dFku ds vk/kkj ij fd og Lokeh gS blfy, ns fn;kA ;fn vkt vU; dksbZ O;fDr vkdj ;g dgs fd eSa bl ifjlj dk Lokeh gwW rks D;k izfroknh la-1 ls 6 ml ‘ks”k ifjlj dks Hkh ml O;fä dks fcuk fdlh vkifŸk fojks/k ds ns nsaxsA blh izdkj oknhx.k Hkh fookfnr IykWV dks fiNys yxHkx 40 lky ls vf/kd le; ls ekax dj jgs gS rc Hkh mUgsa ugh fn;k ijUrq feyhHkxr ds vk/kkj ij tc izfroknh la-1 ls 6 dks fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ dh vko’;drk ugh gksus dh otg ls izfroknh la[;k&7 dks mi fdjk;s ij ns fn;kA bl izdkj Li”V gksrk gS fd fooknxzLr ifjlj dh izfroknhx.k ds eqdkcYks oknhx.k dks l)koukiwoZd ,oa rqyukRed :i ls vf/kd vko’;drk gS vkSj izfroknh la[;k&7 us izfroknh la-1 ls 6 ls feydj oknhx.k ds LokfEkRo dks gh udkj fn;kA tc LokfeRo dks gh udkj fn;k tkrk gS rc fdjk;snkj dks fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj esa jgus dk oS/kkfud o uSfrd vk/kkj nksuks lekIr gks tkrs gS] blfy, tc fdjk;snkj lkadypUn o mlds iq=ksa ds }kjk oknh ds LokfeRo dks gh udkj fn;k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa dqN le; ds fy;s ;g Hkh eku fy;k tkos fd izfroknh la[;k&1 ls 6 dks vf/kd vko’;drk gS rc Hkh os mlds fy;s gdnkj ugh gSA l)kfod O;fä og gksrk gS ftldks okLro esa fu;r ls vfrvko’;drk ifjfLFkfro’ka gks rc] ijarq izfroknh la-1 ls 6 dks izfroknh la-7 us vkdj dgk fd fookfnr IykWV dk ekfyd eS gwa] blfy, rhu pkSFkkbZ Hkkx mlds dgus ds vuqlkj ns fn;k tcfd izfroknh la-1 ls 6 fooknxzLr ifjlj esa dkj[kkuk yxk j[kk gS py jgk Fkk dke gks jgk Fkk vkSj Hkwjk rhu lky ckn vk;k vkSj mlus dgk tc mls ifjlj ns fn;k blls Li”V gksrk gS fd izfroknh la- 1 ls 6 us lh/ks lh/ks rkSj ij oknhx.k LokfeRo dks udkjk gSA izfroknh la- 7 dks ifjlj ns fn;k gS vkSj og Hkh Loa; izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj rhu pkSFkkbZ fgLls ijA dqN le; ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tkos fd izfroknh la-7 us vius vkidks Hkw[k.M+ dk Lokeh crk;k rFkk dqy Hkw[k.M+ 120 QqV yEck ,oa 54 QqV pkSM+k Fkk rks izfroknh la- 1 ls 6 us rhu pkSFkkbZ fgLlk fdl fglkc ls fn;kA ;fn okLro esa Hk; dh otg ls] fookn ls cpus dh otg ls ;fn fu;r lkQ gksus dh ot; ls fn;k gksrh rks lEiw.kZ Hkw[k.M+ nsuk gksrk D;ksafd izfroknh la-7 dk dfFkr foØ; i= 124 x 54 feet dk Fkk] ijUrq ,slk ugh FkkA okLrfod fLFkfr ;g Fkh fd feydj Hkw[k.M+ dks Nhu fy;k tkosA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa rqyukRed :i ls dfBukbZ Hkh izfroknhx.k dks ugh gksrh gS u gh mUgsa fdlh izdkj dh l)kfod iwoZd vko’;drk gSA blds Bhd foijhr oknhx.k dks fookfnr Hkw[k.M+ dh ;qfä;qä ,oa l)kfod vko’;drk gS rFkk ;fn [kkyh ugh gksrk gS rc Hkh oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k dh vis{kk vR;f/kd dfBukbZ gksxhA bl izdkj mä nksuksa fook|dksa dk fuLrkj.k Hkh oknhx.k ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 17. The findings of the learned trial court on Issue No.11 regarding jurisdiction upon the contention raised by the defendant as to whether the suit land is an agricultural land or not, in this connection the “Halka-Patwari”, namely, Shanker Purohit, was also examined by the learned trial court, is also relevant and the same is also quoted herein below for ready reference, which go to show that the claim of ownership of the part of the rented plot in question measuring 54' x 120' [6480 Sq. Ft. divided by 4 = 1620 Sq. Yard, where one square yard is 2' x 2' = 4' Square Ft.], would not tally with the rented premises under Ex.1 rent note of 1964 (09.03.1964), which was clearly admitted by the legal representatives of original defendant/tenant, Sankalchand and said Sankal Chand himself in the previous Suit (Suit No.8/1969), which statement was produced before the learned trial court as Ex.6, in the present suit and the said “Halka Patwari”, Shanker Purohit, stated before the learned trial court that the land alleged to have been purchased by the defendant No.7, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji, being the real brother of original defendant/tenant, Sankalchand, was in Khasra No.2315 from Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh, did not match with the details of the property given on rent under Ex.1 dated 09.03.1964. The said finding of the Issue No.11 regarding statement of “Halka Patwari” are also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^tgka rd fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ ds d`f”k Hkwfe ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa ifjorZu gksus dk iz’u gS ;g dHkh Hkh d`f”k Hkwfe ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa ifjofrZr ugh gqbZA bldk lcls egROkiw.kZ xokg gYdk iVokjh ‘kadj iqjksfgr gS] blus dgk fd iqjkus [kljk uEcj 2315 Hkhueky LVs’ku jksM+ ij vk;k gqvk gSA bl [kljk uEcj dh lgh fLFkfr orZeku esa dguk lEHko ugha gSA blus ftjg esa dgk fd eSa Hkhueky esa iVokjh ds in 6 ebZ] 1998 ls orZeku rd dk;Zjr gwWA [kljk UkEcj 4343 es ekSdk ns[kus x;k FkkA [kljk uEcj 4343 es ekSds ij [kkyh IykWV ,oa edku cus gq, gS] ysfdua fjdkM+Z esa vkcknh esa ugha gSA ekSds ij iwjs [kljk uEcj esa vkcknh clh gqbZ gSA [kljk uEcj 4343 ,oa 4342 dh okLrfod fLFkfr le> esa ugh vk jgh gS vkSj u gh eSa bl ckjs esa crk ldrk gwWA bl egRoiw.kZ xokg tks tehu ds uEcj ds ckjs esa /;ku j[krk gS ,oa miyC/k lk{; ftuds foØ; i= i=koyh ij gS] muds c;kuksa dk foospu djus ij fLFkfr ;g Li”V gksrh gS fd loZizFke rks ;g mYys[k fd;k tkrk gS ftu ftu O;fä;ksa dks vFkkZr Okknhx.k ,oa izfroknh la-7 ds i{k esa tks Hkh foØ; i= gS ml ij [kljk uEcj mfYyf[kr ugha gS vFkkZr tehu ds uEcj mfYy[kr (Sic mYysf[kr½ ugh gSA nwljk ;g dSls dgk tk ldrk fd tks Hkwfe oknhx.k us Ø; dh ogh Hkwfe izfroknh la-7 ds }kjk fyf[kr foØ; i= esa gS] D;ksfd tehu ds iM+ksl n’kkZ;s x;s gS ijUrq nksuksa gh foØ; i=ksa ds iM+ksl vkil esa esy ugh [kkrs gSA rhljk dkj.k fd tks [kljk uEcj 2315 tsBwflag ds i{k esa Fkk ml Hkwfe ckcr gYdk iVokjh crkus dh fLFkfr esa ugh gS fd og Hkwfe dgk gSA tks Hkwfe 2315 dh crkbZ xbZ gS og iwjh vkcknh Hkwfe esa gSA ;|fi ;g d`f”k Hkwfe ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa ifjofrZr ugh gqbZ gS] ijUrq fookfnr Hkwfe ,oa [kljk uEcj 2315 dk feyku fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k tk ldrk gS tcfd Lora= xokg gYdk iVokjh ds vuqlkj fd og ;g crkus es leFkZ ugha gS fd 2315 dh lgh fLFkfr D;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh dgk fd tks 2315 Hkwfe gS ml ij iwjh vkcknh clh gqbZ gS] fjdkMZ esa ugh gSA^^ 18. Ultimately, the learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiff in the following manner: - ^^bl izdkj mijksä fn;s x;s foLr`r foospu oknh ,oa izfroknhx.k dh lk{; dk la{ksi esa fu”d”kZ fudkyus ds i’pkr rFkk izfroknhx.k }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZ dks xgjkbZ ls v/;;u djus ds i’pkr mä fook|dks dk fuLrkj.k mä izdkjk ls r; fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr okni= fo:) izfroknhx.k ds okni= dh dye la[;k&18 ds vuqlkj Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA oknhx.k us vius okni= esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k fd fooknxzLr ifjlj dk orZeku fdjk;k 13-50 :i;s gS ijUrq orZeku esa tc rd ifjlj [kkyh ugh gks tkrk gS rc ls Hkksx&miHkksx ds :i esa ekfld 400@& :i;s v{kjs pkj lkS :i;s izfrekg fnyk;s tkosa rFkk gtkZus ds :i es 1200@& :i;s v{kjs pkj lkS :i;s izfrekg fnyk;s tkos gtkZus ds :i esa 1200@& :i;s v{kjs ckjg lkS :i;s fnyk;s tkosA bl lEcU/k esa ;gh dguk i;kZIr gS fd 13-50 :i;s vkt ls djhc 40&45 lky igys fdjk;k Fkk tks oknh us dsoy ek= 400@& :i;s izfrekg fdjk;k 120 xq.kk 54 QhV ds ifjlj dk tks jsyos LVs’ku o cl LVs.M ds e/; fLFkfr tehu dk ekaxk gS fdlh Hkh n`f”V ls vf/kd ugh gSA vr% oknhx.k izfroknhx.k la-1 ls 6 ls 400@& :i;s izfrekg rFkk okni= izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr djus rd izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA tagk rd p<+s fdjk;s ckcr iz’u gS] p<+s fdjk;s ckcr oknhx.k iwjs okni= es ekSu jgs gS fd fdjk;k cdk;k gS ;k ugh tcfd blds foijhr izfroknhx.k us dgk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’kkuqlkj fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek gks jgk gSA vkns’k vr% oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr okni= fo:) izfroknhx.k ds e; [kpkZ fuEu izdkj ls fMØh fd;k tkrk gS& ¼1½ izfroknhx.k ,d ls lkr fooknxzLr ifjlj ftldk o.kZu okni= dh dye la[;k&1 esa fd;k x;k gS dks nkok fMØh dh rkjh[k ds 2 ekg ds vUnj [kkyh dj dCtk oknhx.k dks lqiqnZ dj nsosA ¼2½ oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls mä ifjlj ds [kkyh gksus rd Hkksx&miHkksx ds gtkZus ds :i esa dksVZ Qhl vnk dj nsus ij izfrekg 400@& :i;s Hkh izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA ¼3½ fM+Øh ipkZ i`Fkd ls fu;ekuqlkj eqfrZc fd;k tkosA Sd/- ¼ds lh eksM+½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼o-[ak-½ Hkhueky^^ 19. As against the aforesaid cogent and correct findings of facts returned by the learned trial court in the said order dated 18.07.2006, this Court also examined the findings of the learned first appellate court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bhinmal, while allowing defendants' appeals being Civil Appeal No.3/2006-Bhura Ram, through legal guardian Shantilal S/o Bhura Ram Vs. LR's of Hastimal S/o Kewalji & Ors., and Civil Appeal No.4/2006-Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand & Ors. The relevant findings of the aforesaid decision in the judgment dated 23.02.2008 are also quoted as under. District Judge, Bhinmal, while allowing defendants' appeals being Civil Appeal No.3/2006-Bhura Ram, through legal guardian Shantilal S/o Bhura Ram Vs. LR's of Hastimal S/o Kewalji & Ors., and Civil Appeal No.4/2006-Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand & Ors. The relevant findings of the aforesaid decision in the judgment dated 23.02.2008 are also quoted as under. The finding on Issue No.1 about the plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 being the landlord qua the defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand, the findings of the appellate court are in favour of plaintiffs only and they are reproduced herein below for ready reference: ^^oknhx.k us fookfnr lEifŸk dk ekfyd gksuk crk;k gS bl LkEcU/k esa vfHkys[k ij iathd`r nLrkostkr izn’kZ ,&1, csgukek Fkkyk] izn’kZ 2, foØ; i= IyksWV ds voyksdu ls ;g iw.kZr;k Li”V gS fd fooknxzLr lEifŸk oknhx.k dh [kjhnlqnk gS fookfnr lEifŸk dk vk/kk Fkkyk gLrhey iq= ekoth vksloky fuoklh Hkhyeky ls oknh gLrhey iq= dsoypan ¼e`Ÿkd½ us tfj;s foØ; nLrkost cgsukek Fkkyk izn’kZ ,&1, ¼izn’kZ , 2 ,½ nksuks gh ,d gh nLrkostkr gS [kjhn fd;k gS ;g Fkkyk izrkiey iq[kjkt ds Fkkyk ds mŸkj esa fLFkr gS blh izdkj oknhx.k la-2 tkoarjkt o pEikyky us fookfnr Fkkyk dk vk/kk fgLlk izrkiey us ekfydkuk gd dk tfj;s cspku foØ; IykWV izn’kZ 2, fnukad 3-6-81 dks Ø; fd;k gSA bl izdkj fookfnr Fkkyk ds vk/kk fgLlk ds e`Ÿkd gLRfhey ¼oknhx.k la-1½ ds dk;e eqdkekr ?ksojpan o ehjk rFkk vk/kk fgLlk ds oknhx.k la-2 tkaorjkt o la-3 pEikyky bu nLrkostkr ds vk/kkj ij ekfyd gSA blh izdkj fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li”V gS fd fookfnr Fkkyk ¼ukSgjk½ izfroknh lakdypan us fnaukd 6-3-1964 dks e`Ÿkd oknh la-1 gLrhey ,oa oknhx.k la-2 tkoarjkt] la-3 pEikyky ds iwoZ ekfyd izrkiey ls fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA blh izdkj Lo;a izfroknh la-1 yxk;r 6 tks fd izfroknh la-1 lkadypan ds oS/k izfrfuf/k gS ftUgksus vius tokc esa fookfnr Fkkyk ¼IykWV½ gLrhey ,oa izrkiey ls fdjk;s ij ysuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ml le; ls fdjk;snkj gksuk Hkh crk;k gS izfroknhx.k us ,slk dksbZ nLrkostkr ;k lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k gS ftlls ,slk izdV gksrk gS fd fookfnr Fkkyk ¼IykWV½ oknhx.k ds ekfydkuk vf/kdkj dk ugh jgk gS Lo;a izfroknh la-1 gLrhey Mh-MCY;w- 1 us fooknxzLr uksgjk ds mlds firk lkadypan ¼e`Ÿkd izfroknh½ fdjk;snkj FksA fookfnr uksgjk ¼IykWV½ mlds firk us fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk ftlesa mlds HkkbZ ,oa Hkwjkjke vkSj Hkwjkjke ds iq=ksa dk dke djuk crk;k gSA oknhx.k la-2 o 3 us fooknxzLr ukSgjk ¼IykWV½ esa vk/kk fgLlk izrkiey ls tfj;s foØ; i= [kjhn fd;k gS ftlds iwoZ ekfyd izrkiey ls izfroknh lakdypan us fookfnr vk/kk fgLlk fdjk;s ij ysuk Hkh Lohd`r rF; gS] gkykafd izfroknhx.k ls rhuksa gh oknhx.k dks fooknxzLr Hkw&[k.M ¼uksgjk½ dks la;qä :i ls Lokeh crk;k gS ysfdu ,slk nLrkost ls Hkh la;qä Lokeh gksuk izdV ugh gksrk gSA oknhx.k la-2 tkoarjkt o la-3 pEikyky us fooknxzLr uksgjk ¼IykWV½ dk vk/kk fgLlk fnukad 23-7-81 dks [kjhn fd;k gS fookfnr ekeyk fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa csn[kyh dk gS ftlesa Hkwfe LokfeRo dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk vko’;d u gksdj ek= Hkw&Lokeh ¼ys.MykWMZ½ ds rF; dks gh fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk gksrk gS vkSj vfHkys[k ij izLrqr lEiw.kZ nLRkkosth lk{;ksa ds voyksdu ls oknhx.k la-2 tkaorjkt o la-3 pEikyky nksuksa gh fookfnr uksgjk ¼Hkw[k.M½ ds vk/kk fgLlk ds Hkw&Lokeh ¼ys.M+ykWMZ½ gksuk izekf.kr gSA vr% fook|d la-1 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa bl izdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd rjehe okni= ds iSjk la-1 esa of.kZr Hkw&[k.M+ ds oknh la-2 tkaorjkt o la-3 pEikyky vk/ks fgLls ds Hkw&Lokeh ¼ys.MykWMZ½ gSA 20. The findings on Issue No.2 regarding tenancy created in favour of original tenant, Sankal Chand, under the Rent-Note (Ex.1) dated 09.03.1964, have also determined in favour of plaintiffs/landlord by the lower appellate court and the same reads as under: - ^^oknhx.k us vius rjehe okni= ds in la[;k&2 esa of.kZr Hkw&[k.M+ dks oknh la-1 gLrhey ¼e`Ÿkd½ ,oa izrkiey ls izfroknh la-1 lkadypan }kjk fnukad 9-3-1964 dks fdjk;s ij ysuk crk;k gS bl lEcU/k esa geus fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 dk v/;;u fd;kA fook|d la-1 ds fu.kZ; esa oknh la-2 tkaorjkt ,oa la-2 pEikyky dk fooknxzLr vkjkth ds vk/kk fgLls dk Hkw&Lokeh ¼ys.M+ykWMZ½ gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gS oknh la[;k&2 tkaorjkt o la[;k 3 pEikyky us fookfnr Hkw[k.M+ dk vk/kk fgLlk izrkiey ds LokfeRo dk [kjhn fd;k x;k gS izfroknh lkadypan us oknhx.k la-2 tkaorjkt o oknhx.k la- 3 pEikyky ds [kjhnlqnk vk/kk Hkw[k.M+ ds iwoZ Hkw&Lokeh izrkiey ls tfj;s fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 fdjk;s ij fy;k gS ml le; ls gh fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ ds izfroknhx.k fdjk;snkj gS ftldk Lo;a izfroknh lakdypan tks fd izfroknh la-1 yxk;r 6 dk firk gS] fdjk;snkj jgk gS orZeku esa izfroknhx.k fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij blh fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 ds vk/kkj ij fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ls dkfct Hkh gS ftldh fdjk;k fpÎh Hkh fnukad 9-3-1964 dks izfroknh lkadypan ds }kjk fu”ikfnr djuk izfroknhx.k us Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gSA vr% bl fook|d dks oknhx.k us vius i{k esa izekf.kr fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 21. The findings of the appellate court on Issue No.4 regarding material alteration, which was decided in favour of defendant/tenant, reversing the finding of learned trial court are also quoted herein below: - ^^tgka rd fookfnr ifjlj esa fcuk Hkw&Lokeh ds lgefr o vuqefr ds lkjHkwr ifjorZu djus dk iz’u gS rks esjs fouez er esa gLrxr izdj.k esa fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li”V gS fd fookfnr ifjlj fdl fdjk;s ds fy, ;k fdl mÌs’; ds fy, ;k fdl izdkj ds mi;ksx ;k mi;ksx ds fy, fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k gS ;k fy;k x;k gS] ds lEca/k esa dksbZ rF; o.kZu ugha fd;k gS ftlls Li”V gS fd fdjk;snkj fookfnr ifjlj ds mi;ksx o miHkksx Lo;a dh lgqfy;r ,oa bPNk rFkk ykHk ds fy, dj ldrk gS] ijUrq gkW] bl izdkj ds mi;ksx o miHkksx ls ,slk Hkh ugh gksuk pkfg, fd fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj esa vkewypwy ;k lkjHkwr ifjorZu bl izdkj ls fd;k tk, ftlls fookfnr ifjlj ds ewY; esa deh gksdj mldk voewY;u gks tk,A lkFk gh bl izdkj dk dksbZ fuekZ.k ;k ifjorZu ,oa ifjo/kZu Hkh ugh gksuk pkfg, ftlls fd fookfnr ifjlj esa lkjHkwr ifjorZu gksdj mlds ewY; esa deh gksdj bldk voewY; gks tk,A gLrxr ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls fdjk;s lqnk fookfnr ¼IykWV½ es tk fd dejs] cjkenk] NIijs] HkfÍ;k o iDdh Q’kZ] gS.M+ iEi bR;kfn cuk;s tkus rF; crk;k gS tks Hkh bl izdkj ls [kkyh Hkw[k.M+ esa lq/kkj gh fd;k x;k gS] ,slk fuekZ.k ifjorZu ;k ifjo/kZu dh ifjHkk”kk esa gksus ls fdlh izdkj dk lkjHkwr ifjoRkZu gksus ls fooknxzLr lEifŸk esa fdlh izdkj dk voewY;u ugh gksrk gSA vr% esjs fouez er esa bl fook|d dks oknhx.k us vius i{k esa izekf.kr ugh fd;k gS vfHkys[k ij izLRkqr lk{; lkexzh ls Hkh bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa izekf.kr ugh gksrk gS ysfdu fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa djus esa fof/k ,oa rF;ksa dh Hkwy dh gSA vr% bl fook|d la-4 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 22. The said reversal by the appellate court is clearly perverse as the appellate court has proceeded on the assumption that if the material alteration increases the value of the suit property even though such material alteration is without consent of the landlord, that cannot furnish the ground of eviction. The said reversal by the appellate court is clearly perverse as the appellate court has proceeded on the assumption that if the material alteration increases the value of the suit property even though such material alteration is without consent of the landlord, that cannot furnish the ground of eviction. This assumption taken by the learned lower appellate court is clearly contrary to various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and looking to the nature of the material alterations carried out by the defendant/tenant, subtenant, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji (real brother of the original tenant, Sankal Chand), this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court was justified in holding that there was material alteration in the suit property without consent of the landlord and, therefore, it was a valid ground for eviction under the Act of 1950. Resultantly, the reversal of such finding by the first appellate court being erroneous deserves to be set aside. 23. Resultantly, the reversal of such finding by the first appellate court being erroneous deserves to be set aside. 23. The findings on Issue No.5 of subletting of the appellate court are also quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^bl fook|d dks izekf.kr djus dk nkf;Ro Hkkj oknhx.k ij gSA oknhx.k us vius okns i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd fooknxzLr ukSgjk ¼IykWV½ izfroknh lakdypan dks fdjk;s ij nsus ds Ik’pkr izfroknh la-7 dks vkxs ls vkxs fdjk;s ij ns fn;k gS bl izdkj fookfnr Hkw [k.M+ dks ^^lcysV^^ djuk crk;k gS tcfd izfroknhx.k fookfnr Hkw&[k.M+ ¼IykWV½ ds Hkwfe Lokeh ugh gksus ls ,slk djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA oknhx.k us vius rjehe okn ds in la[;k 8 esa izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke iq= uksikth dks lcysV djuk crk;k gS blh izdkj fookfnr IykWV esa ls nks dejs ,oa ,d Nijk eqLeh Jhjke o Jh n;ky dks fdjk;s ij nsuk Hkh vfHkopu fd;k gSA fook|d la[;k&1 ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj oknhx.k dk fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ¼IykWV½ ¼ukSgjs½ ds Hkw&Lokeh gksuk izekf.kr gks pqdk gSA izfroknh galjkt Mh-M- 1 us vius dFkuksa esa crk;k gS fd fookfnr uksgjk mlds firk lkadypan us fdjk;s ysus ds ckn blesa mlds firk lkadypan us fdjk;s ysus ds ckn blesa mlds firk lkadypan ¼e`Ÿkd izfroknh la-1½ vkSj Hkwjkjke iq= uksikth nksuksa lkFk&lkFk dke djrs FksA ;gka ij ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh la-1 ¼e`Ÿkd½ ,oa izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke nksuks gh lxs HkkbZ gSA lk{kh galjkt us vkxs crk;k gS fd mlds firk lkadypan ;k mlds ckn mlus Lo;a us Hkwjkjke dks fooknxzLr IykWV dk dksbZ fgLlk fdjk;s ij ugh fn;k gSA blh izdkj ls izfroknh ckcwyky Mh-M-2 us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mlds firkth lkadypan us fooknxzLr ukSgjk ¼IykWV½ fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA izfroknh Hkwjkjke ds iq= ‘kkafryky Mh-M-10 us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mlds firk izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke ekufld :Ik ls chekj gS mlds firk Hkwjkjke dk ,d d`f”k Hkw[k.M ekfydkuk o dCtk lqn vk;k gqvk gS ftlds [kljk uacj 2315 gS blds iqjkus [kljk uacj 1423 gS ysfdu oknhx.k dk Hkw&[k.M+ vkcknh Hkwfe esa gS u fd d`f”k Hkwfe esa gS tcfd rFkkdfFkr Hkw&[k.M+ d`f”k Hkwfe esa fLFkr gksuk crk;k gS izfroknh Hkwjkjke us blh Hkwfe dks ysdj jktLo vnkyrksa esa dk;Zokgh Hkh dh xbZ gS ysfdu jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh ¼f}rh;½ tks/kiqj us vihy fnukad 30-7-87 dks [kkfjt dh gS ftldh izfr izn’kZ 17 vfHkys[k ij gSA oknhx.k ds lk{kh tS:ikjke us izfrijh{kk esa crk;k gS fd Jhjke o Jhn;ky dh fookfnr IykWV esa dke djrs ns[kk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksä lHkh lk{; dks ns[krs gq, fookfnr uksgjk ¼IykWV½ tfj;s fdjk;k fpÎh izn’kZ&1 ls lakdypan izfroknh }kjk fdjk;s ij fy;k tkuk iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gS vkSj izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke dks vius HkkbZ lkadypan ds lkFk bl dkj[kkuk esa dk;Z djuk Hkh izdV gksrk gSA ;g rF; izfroknhx.k us lk{; esa vizR;{k :i ls Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izfroknh lakdypan ¼e`Ÿkd½ us fookfnr uksgjk ¼IykWV½ dks vkxs ls vkxs izfroknh la-7 Hkwjkjke ;k Jhjke o Jhn;ky dks fdjk;s ij lcysV dj fn;k gSaA vr% bl fook|d dks oknhx.k vius i{k esa izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa bl fook|d la-5 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 24. The aforesaid findings of the learned lower appellate court on the issue of subletting in favour of defendant No.7, Bhura Ram are also unsustainable. It is noteworthy that subtenant, namely, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji, who was the real brother of Sankal Chand, the original tenant and claimed to be the owner of 3/4th portion of the suit plot of land never appeared before the learned trial court and got examined himself, nor other co-owner, namely, Pukhraj S/o Premchand Oswal, also never appeared before the learned trial court, nor the said co-owner (Pukhraj) himself sought his impleadment in the suit for saving his so-called interest in the said property and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in holding that this alleged sale-deed claimed in favour of Bhura Ram and Pukhraj (who has never raised any objection or sought his impleadment in the said suit) was a make belief and sham document and no ownership or title could be claimed by said sub-tenant Bhura Ram on the basis of said sale-deed in his favour. This Court also examined the sale-deed dated 31.10.1968 though re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in the scope of second appeal, but to put beyond pale of doubt any such flimsy defence taken by the defendant/cross objector, Bhura Ram, the sale-deed claimed to be executed in favour of Bhura Ram and Pukhraj by Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh, does not inspire any confidence and the description of the said property does not tally or match with the suit property and the same cannot be claimed to be valid defence against the eviction of the defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand, now represented by his legal heirs as well as the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, from the said plot of land in question, the identity and measurement of which are not in doubt and fact is that plot of land measuring 54' x 120' owned half share each by the plaintiff No.1, Hansraj S/o Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Hastimal, which was later on transferred in favour of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, namely, Jawant Raj S/o Shiv Raj and Champalal S/o Jawant Raj and the said plot being surrounded by “Stone-Pattis”, having been admitted by the original tenant, Sankal Chand himself in the first round of litigation in Suit No.8/1969, as well as the legal representatives of defendant No.1 to 6, who were examined by the learned trial court also, there is no doubt that the subsequent sale-deed claimed by said Bhura Ram, who himself does not appear before the learned trial court, nor the co-owner, namely, Pukhraj S/o Premchand Oswal, so appeared and the description of the property given in the sale-deed does not tally, the same cannot be believed as conferring any sort of title or ownership upon the part of the suit premises in favour of defendant No.7, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji. The purchase is not from the original owners or plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3. The revenue litigation is also stated to have terminated in favour of their predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the appellate court has clearly fallen into error in reversing the findings of subletting by Sankal Chand in favour of his brother, Bhura Ram. The purchase is not from the original owners or plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3. The revenue litigation is also stated to have terminated in favour of their predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the appellate court has clearly fallen into error in reversing the findings of subletting by Sankal Chand in favour of his brother, Bhura Ram. Even though, the other witnesses clearly admitted before the learned trial court that said Bhura Ram was working right from beginning in the said workshop with Sankal Chand and later on only he claimed to be the owner of 3/4th portion of the suit property and put up a sign board on the suit premises while declaring him to be the proprietor of M/s Vishwakarma Industries. 25. This Court also examined the stand taken by by the defendants in the present suit on behalf of defendant No.7, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji, whose son, Shantilal, examined as DW.10 by the learned trial court because the said defendant No.7, Bhura Ram did not appear and was never examined by the learned trial court and allowing him to be cross-examined by the plaintiffs because his mental state was said to be not good. On the contrary, other witnesses have throughout confirmed that he was working along with the original tenant, Sankalchand as carpenter in his workshop. One who claims to have purchased the 3/4th portion of the property and carries on the work as a carpenter how he can be believed to be of unsound mind and he himself never appeared before the trial court, whereas he takes the defence that he is owner of 3/4th of the suit property. This casts a serious doubt about the veracity of his stand and completely demolishes the stand taken by the defendant No.7, Bhura Ram, that he is owner of 3/4th portion of the property rather than sub-tenant of his brother, Sankalchand, whose tenancy and landlord-tenant relationship have been proved and accordingly upheld by both the courts below. Therefore, this finding of subletting of the learned appellate court is liable to be reversed and they are hereby so reversed and those of the findings of the learned trial court in this regard are upheld. Therefore, this finding of subletting of the learned appellate court is liable to be reversed and they are hereby so reversed and those of the findings of the learned trial court in this regard are upheld. As a matter of fact also the false claim of ownership by sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, and supported by legal representatives of original tenant, Sankalchand, amounted to the denial of title of landlord and that by itself furnished a ground of eviction of the respondents/tenants. 26. As a matter of fact also the false claim of ownership by sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, and supported by legal representatives of original tenant, Sankalchand, amounted to the denial of title of landlord and that by itself furnished a ground of eviction of the respondents/tenants. 26. The findings of the lower appellate court on Issue No.5 of bonafide necessity to the landlord are also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^esjs fouez er esa oknhx.k ds okn i= es fookfnr ukSgjk ¼IykWV½ dh vius O;kikj o ifjokj ds jgoklh; iz;kstu gsrq vko’;drk gksuh crkbZ gS tcfd izfroknhx.k us vius tokc ds lkFk izLrqr oknhx.k dh lwph lEifŸk ^^v** ¼izn’kZ ,&72½ ds varxZr oknhx.k dh dkQh lEifŸk dks n’kkZ;k gS ftlesa ls Øe la- 1 ls 6 rd Hkhueky esa lEifŸk fo|eku gksuk crk;k gS lEifŸk Øe la[;k 7 Åa>k ¼xqtjkr½ esa fLFkr gksuh crkbZ gS bu lEifŸk ls oknhx.k us bUdkj ugh fd;k gS fd bl izdkj dh lEifŸk mls LokfeRo dh ugh gSA oknh ?ksojpan ih-M-1 us izfrijh{kk esa crk;k gS fd og xqM+kekykuh jgrk gSA blh izdkj lk{kh tkaorjkt ih-M+- 2 Lo;a izfroknh la-2 tks fd izfroknh la-3 pEikyky izfroknh dk firk gS] us izfrijh{kk esa pEikyky Hkhueky esa mlds lkFk ugha jgrk gS] Å¡>k esa jgrk gS mldk ifjokj Hkh Å¡>k es gh jgrk gS dHkh & dHkkd Hkhueky vkrk gS ftl edku esa mldk Hkhueky esa jgokl gS og edku mlds yM+ds ds uke dk gSA blh izdkj lk{kh tkaorjkt ih-M+2 us izfrijh{kk esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldk [kkjh jksM+] Hkhueky esa jgokl gS [kkjh jksM+ ij dkQh nqdkus gSa ftlessa fdjk.ks dh Hkh nqdku gSA blh izdkj ftjg esa ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd orZeku esa mldk jgokl xkseth lsB ds iM+kSl esa gS mlds vkSj eksgujkt ds edku ds chp ,d vkSj edku gS tks eq[; lM+d ij gS blh izdkj d`f”k e.M+h okyk edku fdjk;s ij fn;k gS] lkapksj tkus okyh lM+d ij mlds iq= pEikyky oknh la-3 ds iq= nyhpan dk edku gSA blh izdkj paikyky ds iq= dh vk;q 28 o”kZ gS xkS’kkyk okyk edku paikyky us fy;k gSa tks mlds yM+ds ds caV es vk;k gS mlds ,d ek= yM+dk gSA oknhx.k ds lk{kh Hkaojyky ih-M+-4 us Hkh izfrijh{kk esa crk;k gS fd paikyky Å¡>k esa O;kikj djrs gS] tkaorjkt Hkh thjk vkfn dk O;kikj djrs gSA bl izdkj bu lHkh rF;ksa dk ,d LkkFk lexz foospu ,oa fo’ys”k.k fd;k tk, rks ;g rF; lkeus mHkj dj vkrk gS fd orZeku esa oknhx.k ds ikl esa jgokl gsrq edkukr Hkhueky esa miyC/k gS blh izdkj oknhx.k ds ikl Hkhueky esa tkaorjkt dk thjk dk O;kikj djuk Hkh crk;k gS oknh ?ksojpan ckgj O;kikj gksuk crk;k gSA oknhx.k us bl rF; dks drbZ izekf.kr ugh fd;k gS fd fookfnr IykWV es os dkSulk O;kikj djuk pkgrs gS ftlds fy, ;gh Hkwfe mi;qä gS ,slk dksbZ izLrko dk C;kSjk bR;kfn Hkh ugh crk;k gS vkSj u gh ml O;kikj ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ rF; izdV fd, gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k ds ikl ek= ;gh dkj[kkuk gS ftlesa mudk dkj[kkuk py jgk gS ftles ikl vU; dksbZ Hkwfe gksus dk rF; oknhx.k us izekf.kr ugh fd;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa oknhx.k ds ikl dLck Hkhueky esa fooknxzLr ukSgjk ¼Iyk¡V½ ds vykok vU; edku bR;kfn ,oa IykWV gksus ls izfroknhx.k dh rqyuk esa vf/kd vko’;drk gksuh ugh dgh tk ldrh gSA blh izdkj tgka rd dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS izfroknhx.k fookfnr ukSgjk ¼IykWV½ esa dkj[kkuk pyk dj viuk thou ;kiu djrk gS ftldks mlds }kjk uksgjk ¼IykWV½ ds LokfeRo dks udkjk Hkh ugh gS fookfnr Hkw&[k.M+ ¼IykWV½ dh oknhx.k dh rqyukRed izfroknhx.k dks vf/kd vko’;drk gS izfroknhx.k ds ikl esaa bl fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ dkj[kkuk pykus gsrq dksbZ Hkwfe miYkC/k gksuk izdV ugh gksrk gS tcfd oknhx.k ds ikl muds jgokl gsrq edku miYkC/k gS fookfnr IykWV ¼uksgjs½ esa mldk D;k O;kifjd iz;kstu gS] bls Hkh izekf.kr oknhx.k us ugh fd;k gS tcfd oknhx.k dk O;kikj Å¡>k bR;kfn LFkkuks ij gS blh izdkj Hkhueky eas Hkh nqdku fLFkfr gksuh crkbZ gS ftUgs Hkh fdjk;s ij nsuk crk;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa oknhx.k dh rqyuk esa izfroknhx.k i{k dks vf/kd dfBukbZ;k¡ fookfnr Hkw& [k.M¼IykWV½ dks [kkyh djokus esa gksus dh lEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 7 o 9 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds fo:) o izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 27. The aforesaid findings of the learned lower appellate court regarding bonafide necessity are also perverse and the court cannot substitute its own opinion that since the landlord was having other shops and properties in their possession in Bhinmal, therefore, there cannot be said to a bonafide necessity for the plaintiffs or their family members. The learned lower appellate court has lost sight of the fact that that there were two owners, having half share in the suit property measuring 54' x 120', in total and 120' x 27' by each of them and, therefore, if such small land on the main railway station road of Bhinmal, was claimed for their own need, the issue of bona fide necessity as well as comparative hardship clearly deserved to be decided in favour of plaintiffs, as was rightly decided by the learned trial court in their favour and the appellate court below has grossly erred in reversing the findings though as wholly unfounded and wholly untenable grounds, therefore, same deserves to be reversed and those of the learned trial court are upheld. 28. Thus, on over all analysis and the legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first appellate court has erred in reversing the eviction decree and the findings returned on all the four issues deserve to be upheld, though eviction decree can be upheld on even a single ground under Section 13 of the Act of 1950 and all the substantial questions of law, framed by this Court deserve to be answered and are accordingly so answered in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and against the defendants/tenants and, therefore, the impugned part of the judgment and decree of lower appellate court deserve to be quashed and set aside and the present appeals of the plaintiffs/landlord, deserves to be allowed, while the cross objections filed by the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, who has sought to raise the issue of title through such cross-objections, have no force and the same are also liable to be dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. 29. 29. Therefore, both the second appeals of the plaintiffs/appellants/landlord are allowed and dismissing the cross objections of the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji Suthar while condoning the delay of 9 days in filing the same, and the eviction decree given by the learned trial court with respect to the entire suit property is upheld. The defendants/ respondents/tenants, namely, defendants No.1 to 7, shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the appellants/plaintiffs within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31.08.2015 and shall pay mesne profit for the period throughout from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 01.05.1982 @ Rs.500/-per month till the date of passing of eviction decree i.e. 18.07.2006 and thereafter shall pay mesne profits @ Rs.1000/-per per month and now shall pay Rs.3000/-per month commencing from March, 2015 on wards and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondents/plaintiffs also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendants/respondents/tenants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellants/plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear simple interest @ 9% per annum. The respondents/defendants/tenants shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit property 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 and any such third party would be also bound by their eviction decree. The respondents/defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months 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 six months from today i.e. on or before 31.08.2015 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellants/plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.