JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. The present Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff-landlord in a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.05.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Churu in Appeal Decree No. 7/1996 "Girdhari Lal & Anr. v. Ishwari Prasad" by which, the learned First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal filed by the defendants-tenants against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu in Civil Original Suit No. 14/1982 "Ishwar Prasad v. Girdhari Lal & Anr." by which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the eviction suit of the plaintiff-Ishwar Prasad and directed eviction of the defendants-tenants. 2. 2. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court for decreeing the suit, as recorded in its judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995, is quoted herein below for ready reference:- rudh laå 6%& bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izfroknhx.k 1 us vius tokc nkos esa oknh dks ekfyd ugha ekuk gS oknh ds lkFk ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k dks Hkh bUdkj fd;k gSA vius leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk us lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUr ,åvkbZåvkjå lhåtså 1972 vkU/kzizns'k 60¼3½ esUrk cuke cpw oxSjk] 1994¼2½] MCY;wå,yålhå jktå 723 ;ksukjk;.k cuke tkudh izlkn is'k fd;sA tokc esa fo}ku vf/kodrk izfroknhx.k us rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS fd oknh fookfnr ifjlj dk ekfyd gh ugha gSA vr% oknh o izfroknhx.k esa ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds laca/k esa gksus dk iz'u gh ugha gSA eSaus izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;kA tSlk fd rudh laå 1 o 7 dh foospuk ls lkfcr gS fd lq[kkjke us izn'kZ 1 fdjk;kukek ij vius gLrk{kj fd;s Fks o fookfnr ifjlj fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA izfroknhx.k lq[kkjke ds dkuwuh mRrjkf/kdkjh gksus ls oknh ds fdjk;snkj gS vkSj izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa ds vuqlkj ekfyd ds LoRo ls bUdkj djus ij csn[kyh dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tk ldrh gSA ;fn ugha oknh us izfroknhx.k ds vkpj.k dks ekQ Hkh ugha fd;k gSA vr% ;g rudh oknh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknhx.k ds fo:) rS; dh tkrh gSA rudh laå 8%& bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd fookfnr lEifRr ij izfroknhx.k dk dCtk dkQh iqjkuk (iwoZtksa ds le; dk) gS ftldh iqf"V izfroknhx.k ds xokgku us dh gSA bl ifjlj esa izfroknhx.k dk iqjku ty laca/k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izn'kZ 1 fdjk;kukek lq[kkjke }kjk oknh ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 19-08-1953 ftldh izfr i=koyh ij miyC/k ds vuqlkj Hkh izfroknhx.k dk dCtk ml le; ugha FkkA izn'kZ 2 iV~Vk oknh ds gd esa gSA vr% izfroknhx.k dk izfrdwy dCtk ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s%& ,åvkbZåvkjå 1995 ,lålhå 73 lh lhålhålhå 1992 ¼3½ fnYyh 548 lhålhålhå 1993 ¼1½ ,eåihå 701@1 lhålhålhå 1990 ¼1½ ,eålhå 29@1@3 lhålhålhå 1990 ¼1½ xksgkVh 715@5 lhålhålhå 1993 ¼2½ xksgkVh 307 ds U;kf;d n`VkUr is'k fd;sA eSaus i{kdkjku ds rdksZa dks /;ku iwoZd lquk o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;kA Lo;a MhåMCY;qå 1 fxj/kkjh ¼izfroknh½ us vius c;ku esa dFku fd;k gS og fookfnr uksgjk dks lnk ls dke esa ys jgk gS blfy, ekfyd gS fdUrq xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd blds ekfydkuk vf/kdkj ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dkxtkr ;k cspku mlds ikl ugha gSA xokg MhåMCY;wå 2 tho.kjke us vius c;ku esa dFku fd;k gS fd mls irk ugha fd fookfnr uksgjk lq[kkjke }kjk fdjk;s ij fy;k gqvk gS ;k ughaA og fxj/kkjh ds dgus ls c;ku nsus vk;k gSA bl tehu ds lEcU/k esa ,d izdj.k igys pyk Fkk ftldk fu.kZ; fnukad 19-08-1953 dks jktå mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk lkoarjke cuke lqUnjey oxSjk flfoy vihy laå 15@1950 ds izdj.k esa fd;k x;kA dkuwuu U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa T;wfMf'k;y uksfVl ys ldrk gS bls i`Fkd ls iznf'kZr djok;k tkuk vko';d ugha gSA xokg ihåMCY;wå 2 ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe oknh dh gSA fu.kZ; fnukad 19-08-1953 ds vuqlkj vihy [kkfjt dh xbZ o v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk Qslyk ekU; jgkA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us oknh ds nknk ds i{k esa Qslyk fn;k FkkA bl izdkj fu.kZ; fnukad 19-08-1953 ds vuqlkj Hkh fu.kZ; ds fnu rd izfroknhx.k dk fookfnr ifjlj ij ugha Fkk tcfd izfroknhx.k us viuk dCtk 50&60 o"kZ ls gksuk dFku fd;k gSaA mDr fu.kZ; nkok nk;jh ls yxHkx 30 o"kZ iqjkuk gSA bl izdkj 30 o"kZ ioZ 50&60 o"kZ dh vof/k esa egRoiw.kZ vUrj gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dk ;g dFku fd izfroknhx.k dk dCtk 50&60 lky iqjkuk gS vius vki esa vlR; gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ 1 ds ckn ds gSa ftuls Hkh ;g lkfcr ugha gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k dk iqjkuk dCtk iwoZtksa ds le; dk gSaA rudh laå 1 o 7 dh foospukuqlkj Hkh fdjk;kukek 28-04-1973 dks lq[kkjke }kjk fy[kk tkuk lkfcr gksus ls rFkk bl rudh dh foospuk vuqlkj ;g drbZ lkfcr ugha gS fd izfroknhx.k dk fookfnr ifjlj ij iqjkuk dCtk ¼iwoZtksa ds le; dk gks½ gksA izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr Hkh oknh dk leFkZu djrs gSaA vr% ;g rudh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) o oknh ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA rudh laå 9 bl izdkj rudh laå 1] 2] 3] 4] 6 iwoZr% rFkk rudh laå 5 va'kr% oknh ds i{k esa lkfcr gksus rFkk rudh laå 7 o 8 izfroknhx.k ds fo:) lkfcr gksus rFkk oknh ds i{k esa lkfcr gksus ls okn oknh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vr% okn oknh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdzh fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSa oknh izfroknhx.k ls nkos dh /kkjk ,d esa of.kZr ifjlj dk dCtk] fnukad 01-02-1979 ls mDr ifjlj dk fdjk;k vkt dh rkjh[k ls :å 50@& ekgokj dh nj ls fdjk;k] fnukad 14-03-1995 ls ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr gksus rd :å 50@& ekgokj dh nj ls ;wt ,.M vksD;sis'ku dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fdUrq oknh mDr ifjlj dk dCtk vkt dh rkjh[k ls nks ekg ckn izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk rFkk 01-02-1982 ls vkxkeh fdjk;k ;wt ,.M vksD;qis'ku dh jkf'k ij oknh }kjk dksVZ Qhl ns; gksxhA [kpkZ eqdnek oknh izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rnkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA ,lMh@& ¼lq'khy dqekj tSu½ flfoy U;k;k/kh'k dfu"B [k.M ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke oxZ pq: jktå** 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995, the defendants filed the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court of the Additional Judge, Churu, namely, Appeal Decree No. 7/1996 "Girdhari Lal & Anr. v. Ishwar Prasad" which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court on 12.05.1997, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995 and while reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court. v. Ishwar Prasad" which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court on 12.05.1997, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.1995 and while reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- rudh uaå 1 ls 7 rudh uaå 1 dk Hkkj lcwr oknh@jsLiksaMsUM ij gSA okn ds iSjk uaå 1 esa of.kZr ckM+k izfroknhx.k ds iwotZ Lo0 lq[kkjke us fnukad 28-04-1973 dks :å 50@& ekgokj fdjk;s ij ysdj fdjk;kuke fy[kuk oknh us crk;k gSA tcfd rudh uaå 7 dk Hkkj lcwr izfroknhx.k ij gS D;ksafd izfroknhx.k }kjk fdjk;kukek dks QthZ rS;kj djuk crk;k gSA nksuksa dh rufd;kr ,d gh fdjk;sukesa ls lEcfU/kr gSA ,d i{k fdjk;kukek dks lgh crk jgk gS tcfd nwljk QthZ nLrkost crk jgk gSA nksuksa dh fefJr lk{; gksus ls ,d lkFk fu.kZ; djuk lqfo/kktud gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh ,d lkFk gh nksuksa rudh dk fu.kZ; fd;k gSA ihåMCY;qå 1 bZ'ojh izlkn oknh us c;ku fn;k gS fd izn'kZ 1 fdjk;kukek 28-04-1973 dks lq[kkjke }kjk mlds gd esa fy[kk] ftl ioj gLrk{kj lq[kkjke us , ls ch mlds lkeus fd;sA ml oDr ukjk;.knkl] f'koHkxoku] vk'kkjke ekStwn Fks] mUgksaus Hkh gLrk{kj uhps fd;sA iV~Vk izn'kZ 2 oknh ds firk ds uke dk Hkh is'k gqvk ,oa blh tehu ds lEcU/k esa lEekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; 09-08-1993 dk izn'kZ 3 Hkh is'k gqvkA ihåMCY;wå 2 ckcwyky xokg oknh dh vksj ls is'k gqvk gS mlus dgk gS fd x.kirjkx mlds nknk FksA x.kirjke lkoarjke ds NksVs HkkbZ FksA fookfnr tehu oknh dh gSA x.kirjke dh ekWa xksj/kunkl dh cqvk FkhA xokg us izn'kZ 1 fdjk;kukek ns[kdj dgk fd lq[kkjke ds , ls ch gLrk{kj gSa D;ksafd blh rjg ds gLrk{kj mldh cfg;ksa esa dj j[ks gSA D;ksafd lq[kkjke mldh nqdku ls lkekuu ysrk FkkA ftu xokgku ds lkeku nLrkost fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS] muesa ls fdlh Hkh xokg dks is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl lk{; ds [k.Mu esa izfroknh dh vksj ls MhåMCY;qå 1 fxj/kkjh yky is'k gqvk gSA mlus izn'kZ 1 fdjk;kuke dks QthZ crk;k gS vkSj tehu ij 40&50 lky ls mudk dCtk gksuk crk;k gSA blh izdkj vU; xokgku tks is'k gq;s gSa muesa MhåMCY;qå 2 tho.kjke us 40&50 lky ls bl tehu ij dCtk crk;k gSA fdjk;k ij lq[kkjke }kjk yh gqbZ gks rks irk ughaA fo}ku odhy vihyk.V dh vksj ls rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd ftu xokgku ds le{k ;g nLrkost fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k vVsLVhax foVus'k dksbZ Hkh is'k ugha gqvk gS blfy;s /kkjk 68 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds rgr nLrkost dks fu"ikfnr lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA fo}ku odhy vihyk.V dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd cfg;kWa ftu ij gLrk{kj djuk crk;k x;k gSa is'k ugha gqbZ blfy;s foijhr vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd cfg;kWa oknh ,oa xokg ds ikl FkhA fo}ku odhy vihyk.V dh vksj ls ,åvkbZåvkjå 1985 dydRrk ist 200] ,åvkbZåvkjå 1980 bykgkckn ist 395] ,åvkbZåvkjå 1979 dydRrk ist 256] ,åvkbZåvkjå 1989 lqizhe dksVZ ist 269] ,åvkbZåvkjå 1989 dsjyk ist 163] 1994¼4½ lqizhe dksVZ ds'kst ist 723 is'k fd;kA fo}ku odhy jsLiksMsaV us rdZ fn;k fd vVsLVhax foVus'k dks izfroknh us thr fy;k gS vkSj vius i{k esa dj fy;k gS blfy;s is'k ugha fd;k tk ldk D;ksafd oknh ckgj jgrk gS blfy;s izfroknh ds gLrk{kj dks tkuus okyk xokg ckcwyky oknh ds dFku dk rkbZn esa is'k gqvk gSA ;g ckr fufoZokn gS fd oknh dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh xokg Lo;a ds vykok dksbZ is'k ugha gqvk gSA ckcwyky ihåMCY;qå 2 oknh dk fj'rsnkj gS tks izfroknh ds gLrk{kj mldh cfg;ksa esa gksrs gq;s Hkh is'k ugha djrk gS blfy;s ,slh lk{; dk dksbZ vFkZ ugha gS D;ksafd oknh dk fj'rsnkj gksus ls fgrc)rk j[krk gSA nLrkost lkfcr ugha gksus ds ckjsa esa mijksDr lEekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk uthj ,oa fofHkUu mPp U;k;ky;ksa dh uthjsa Li"V gSA vxj dksbZ Hkh vVsLVhax foVus'k tks fu"iknu ds le; ekStwn Fks lk{; esa is'k ugha gksrs gSa rks bl nLrkost dks lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA nLrkost dks QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr gksuk crk;k x;k gS vkSj Li"V badkj fd;k x;k gS fd Loå lq[kjke us ,slk dksbZ nLrkost fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k gS] ,slh lwjr esa /kkjk 68 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds rgr nLrkost fu"ikfnr oknh ds gd esa djuk lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;gkWa ;g Hkh mYys[k djuk mfpr gksxk fd oknh Lo;a us gh vius gd esa c;ku fn;k gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us gLrk{kjksa dk feyku fd;k gS ysfdu ,sls feyku dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha tc nLrkost dk fu"iknu gh ewy :i esa lkfcr ugha gS] ,slh rqyuk ,d jk; ds vykok dksbZ egRo ugha j[krh tSlk fd lEekuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ,åvkbZåvkjå 1967 lqizhe dksVZ 1326 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ewy :i esa nLrkost lkfcr ugha gksus ij Lohdkj'kqnk lq[kkjke ds gLrk{kjksa dh rqyuk djuh pkfg;s FkhA oknh us vius gd esa fdjk;kuke ,oa lq[kkjke }kjk fu"ikfnr djus dk c;ku dkfcy fo'okl ugha gS D;ksafd dksbZ Hkh xokg rkbZn ugha djrk gSA fdjk;kukek izn'kZ 1 fu"ikfnr Loå lq[kkjke }kjk djuk lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA rudh uaå ,d cgd oknh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us tks fuf.kZr dh gS og =qfViw.kZ gSA Loå lq[kkjke us oknh ds gd esa dksbZ fdjk;kukek ugha fy[kkA nLrkost izn'kZ 1 oknh lkfcr ugha dj ik;kA blfy;s izfroknh ds gLrk{kj QthZ gksus ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; djus dh dksbZ vko';drk gh ugha jg tkrh D;ksafd Loå lq[kkjke ds gLrk{kj gksuk gh lkfcr ugha gSA nkos ij bldk dksbZ vlj ugha iM+rk gS D;ksafd ewy fdjk;kukek gh lkfcr ugha gSA nksuksa rufd;kr fo:) oknh r; dh tkrh gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vikLr djus ds dkfcy gSA rudh uaå 2 fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze djus ls lEcfU/kr ;g fook|d gS ysfdu oknh ,oa izfroknh ds chp edku ekfyd rFkk fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k gh lkfcr ugha gS blfy;s fdjk;k vnk;xh djus dk iz'u gh iSnk ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh fdjk;k vnk djus ds fy;s ck/; ugha gS vkSj fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k x;k gSA fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dksbZ O;frdze ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;g rudh fo:) oknh r; dh tkrh gSA rudh uaå 3 bl rudh dk Hkkj lcwr oknh ij gSA bl ckM+s esa edku cukdj ifjokj lfgr jgus dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lnHkkoukiwoZd vko';drk crkbZ gSA oknh ihåMCY;qå 1 bZ'ojh izlkn lk{; esa is'k gqvk gSA bZ'ojh izlkn us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd og chfr;k fcgkj esa jgrk gS ogkWa ywVekj dk ,d&nks dk.M mlds lkFk gks x;k blfy;s pw: vk dj jguk pkgrk gSA mlds ikl edku cukus ds fy, i;kZIr lk/ku gSA blds vykok dksbZ c;ku oknh dk ugha gSA D;k bl c;ku ls oknh dks edku dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk ekuh tk ldrh gS esjh jk; esa ugha D;ksafd fcgkj esa oknh O;kikj djrk gS ;g ckr Lohdkj 'kqnk gSA ;gkWa ij dksbZ /ka/kk mldk ugha gS dsoy ek= ,d&nks ywVekj dh ?kVuk gksuk crk;k gS blfy;s vkdj pw: jguk crk;k gS ek= ,d cgkuk gS ;g dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk ugha dgh tk ldrhA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; =qfViw.kZ gS vkSj vikLr djus ds dkfcy gS tks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us rqyukRed dfBukbZ ij vf/kd tksj fn;k gS ysfdu rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz'u tc iSnk gksrk gS fd oknh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk lkfcr dj ns vU;Fkk rqyukRed dfBukbZ ij fopkj djus dh dksbZ vko';drk gh ugha jg tkfrA oknh ds c;ku ls izFken`"V;k gh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod vko';drk bl ckM+s dh [kkyh djkus dh izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vihy esa ;g rudh fo:) oknh@jsLiksaMs.V r; dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA nksuksa i{kksa mijksDr rdksZa dks lquk x;kA dCtk oknh us viuk crk;k gSA ihåMCY;qå 1 bZ'ojh izlkn us crk;k fd fdjk;s ij nsus ls igys fookfnr ckM+k ij mldk dCtk Fkk] lq[kkjke dk dksbZ dCtk igys ugha FkkA oknh ds dFku dh rkbZn esa ,d xokg ihåMCY;qå 2 ckcwyky is'k gqvk gSA mlus vius c;kuksa esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh cw<+h nknh oknh dh cqvk FkhA ysfdu fQj Hkh dCtk ckcr bl xokg us dqN ugha dgk gS tcfd izfroknh ihåMCY;qå 1 fxj/kkjh us 40&50 lky ls dCtk mudk o muds ifjokj dks gksuk crk;k gS vkSj bldh rkbZn MhåMCY;qå 2 tho.kjke Lo;a xokg us dh gS vkSj ;g lkQ crk;k gS fd uksgjs ij dCtk 45&50 lky ls lq[kkjke ,oa izfroknhx.k dk ns[k jgk gSA bl xokg ls fdlh dk dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gSA iM+kslh xokg gS blfy;s c;ku ugha ekuus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA dCtk fu%lansg oknh dh tkudkjh esa jgk gS D;ksafd lHkh ds lkeus dkfct jgs gS vkSj iM+ksl esa oknh dh gh tehu gS blfy;s vufHkKrk izfroknh ds dCts dk oknh dks gksuk Hkh LokHkkfod ugha gSA izfrdwy dCtk 40&50 lky ls gksuk izfroknh ds ekSf[kd lk{; ls lkfcr gSA ;g rudh cgl izfroknhx.k fo:) oknh r; dh tkrh gSA rudh uaå 9 ;g rduh vuqrks"k dh gSA okn oknh lkfcr ugha gS blfy;s v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us tks nkok fMdzh fd;k gS og fu.kZ; =qfViw.kZ gS vkSj vikLr djus dkfcy gSA ;g vihy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 13-03-1995 =qfViw.kZ gksus ls vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA okn oknh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA ,lMh@& cynso iqjh xksLokeh vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k pw: jktå ;g fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 12-05-1997 dks esjs }kjk fy[kk;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA ,lMh@& cynso iqjh xksLokeh vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k pw: jktå 4. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 12.05.1997 of the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal which was admitted by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.12.1998, while framing the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the first appellate court has erroneously given its findings on the basis of misreading of evidence, conjectures and surmises? (2) Whether the defence of the respondents tenants is liable to be struck down when they have failed to pay/deposit the rent determined by the trial court? 5. The well settled legal position about the bona fide need of the landlord in the following judgments is as under:- (i) 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. (ii) 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. 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 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 bona fides 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." (iii) 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 1950s to 1990s to pro-landlord from 1990s 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 1950s 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 1950s 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." 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)" (iv) This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No. 132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms :- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. 515.35/- per month more than amply highlights the point)" (iv) This Court in the case of LR's of Prakash v. Poornima (SBCSA No. 132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) also emphasised that landlord was the best judge of his needs in the following terms :- "5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, Mr. S.N. Pungalia strongly opposed these submissions and urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the finding of facts returned by the courts below are based on cogent and relevant evidence and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed as the bona fide need of the landlord was fully established before the learned trial court and as per the catenae of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should satisfy his bona fide need for his business place and from the facts found by the courts below it was clear that the very source of livelihood of plaintiffs was the STD PCO Booth, which is presently run under the staircase and they need bigger premises for carrying out this business". (v) In the case of Denzil Najrath v. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217 this Court has held under :- "Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and evidence recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the fact about the bona fide need of the landlord recorded by the learned trial court are not perverse in any manner. They are based on cogent reasons and evidence and no interference in the impugned judgment is required to be made in the present first appeal of the defendant tenant. The owner-plaintiff, Swarn Singh has clearly stated in paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit that the available house with the plaintiff's family was very small of three rooms and for a family of two married brothers and three married sisters and parents of them, the said accommodation was very short of the requirement and, therefore, they needed the suit house for their own residential purposes. Nothing in the cross-examination was even asked from the said deponent about the relationship and number of family members and, therefore, the averments made in the affidavit was sufficient proof unshaken in the cross-examination of the said deponent, namely, Swarn Singh. It is well settled that findings about the bona fide need of the landlord are findings of fact and unless they can be said to be perverse or without any foundation, the same cannot be interfered with by the appellate court; and even though this is first appeal as the trial Court was that of learned Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur and requirement of substantial question of law may not be there as such as is required for second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., still this Court is satisfied that decree under appeal deserves no interference and the present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant has no merit." 6. The position with regard to striking out of defence upon default in payment of rent has been recently discussed by this Court in the case of Srichand S/o Alam Sindhi (D) through Legal Heirs v. Shanti Devi W/o Jagdish Land, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 193/2005, decided on 23rd April, 2015 in which this Court has held as under:- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal of the appellants/ defendants/tenant deserves to be dismissed and the substantial questions of law framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of plaintiff/respondent/landlord and the eviction decree cannot be upset in the present second appeal. There was no direction to re-determine the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act as contended. The continuous default culminated in the defence being struck out under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950. The appellant/defendant despite opportunities granted to him failed to disprove the default and failed to lead any cogent evidence and he himself has admitted before trial court below that there was delay in payment rent for the period September, 1986 to April, 1987, however, the same can be condoned. 8. The appellant/defendant despite opportunities granted to him failed to disprove the default and failed to lead any cogent evidence and he himself has admitted before trial court below that there was delay in payment rent for the period September, 1986 to April, 1987, however, the same can be condoned. 8. This submission is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nassiruddin v. Sitaram Agarwal, 2003 DNJ (SC) 180, the relevant extract of which is given below: - "Coming to the second question, we are of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is true that Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act. But Section 5 in its terms is not applicable to wherever there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads thus: "5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." On perusal of the said Section it is evident that the question of application of Section 5 would arise where any appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or application within such period. Section 13(4) provides that in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1), the tenant shall on the first date of hearing or on or before such date, the Court may on the application fixed in this behalf or within such time the tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord in court as determined under sub-section (3) from the date of such determination or within such further time not exceeding three months as may be extended by the Court. Thus, sub-section (4) itself provides for limitation of a specific period within which the deposit has to be made, which cannot be exceeding three months as extended by this Court. The matter may be examined from another angle. The deposit by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the deposit does not require any application, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed having regard to Section 3 thereof. For filing an application after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Limitation Act or any other special statute a cause of action must arise. Compliance of an order passed by a Court of Law in terms of a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action. Failure to comply with an order passed by a Court of Law instant consequences are provided for under the statute. The court can condone the default only when the statute confers such a power on the Court and not otherwise. In that view of the matter we have no other option but to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in the instant case." 9. Thus, viewed from any angle, the present second appeal filed by the appellants/defendants/tenants is liable to be dismissed and the eviction decree deserves to be upheld. The questions of law framed above are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants/tenants. The present second appeal of the defendants/tenants is, accordingly, dismissed." 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon the perusal of the record of the case, including the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal of the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law, as framed and quoted herein above, deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendants-respondents. This Court is of the opinion that the findings, as arrived by the learned Trial Court for decreeing the eviction suit of the plaintiff, are based on cogent and relevant evidence and material available before it but the learned First Appellate Court had erroneously reversed the relevant findings of the learned Trial Court and has committed an error in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Second Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff-Ishwari Prasad S/o Gordhan Das is allowed, while answering the substantial questions of law, as framed and quoted herein above, in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and against the respondents-defendants. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court dated 12.05.1997 is set aside and that of the learned Trial Court dated 13.03.1995 is restored. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts concerned and to the parties concerned forthwith. 9. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondents-defendants-tenants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the appellant plaintiff within a period of Six Months, i.e. on or before 30.06.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month (Rupees One 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 appellant/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of Six Months, as mentioned above, for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondents/defendants/tenants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the appellant/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The respondents/tenants 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 respondents/tenants 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 respondents-defendants 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 appellant-plaintiff within a period of Six Months, as mentioned above, from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the appellant-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.