Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.—The plaintiff-landlord-Mohanlal s/o Shri Juharmal Ji, who is now represented by his legal representatives, Smt.Nirmala w/o Late Mohanlal and others, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC in this Court on 26.02.2004 against the defendant-tenant-Dharampal s/o Shri Bhikhaji, in respect of the suit house in question situated at Takhatgarh, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali. 2. Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.—The plaintiff-landlord-Mohanlal s/o Shri Juharmal Ji, who is now represented by his legal representatives, Smt.Nirmala w/o Late Mohanlal and others, has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC in this Court on 26.02.2004 against the defendant-tenant-Dharampal s/o Shri Bhikhaji, in respect of the suit house in question situated at Takhatgarh, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali. 2. The suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-landlord inter alia on the ground of default and bona fide need of the landlord, came to be dismissed by both the learned courts below, with the following findings and observations:- Order dated 03.06.1995 of the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur, District Pali in Civil Original Suit No.101/79 – Mohanlal vs. Dharampal:- ^^rudh la[;k nks bu rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk tks rudh la[;k nks fuEu izdkj gS& ^^D;k oknxzLr ifjlj dh oknh dks O;fDrxr ,oa ;qfDr;qDr l)kiwoZd vko';drk gS\** bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dk rdZ gS fd oknxzLr ifjlj dh oknh dks vius o vius ifjokj ds mi;ksx gsrq ;qfDr;qDr :i ls rFkk l)koiwoZd futh vko';drk gS vkSj blh mn~ns'; ls oknh us mDr ifjlj [kjhn fd;k FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd xokg ih M 1 oknh eksguyky us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd edku eq>s jgus ds fy, pkfg;sA esjs firkth ds 4 yM+ds gS] nks 'kknh'kqnk gSA ;g edku eSaus jgus ds fy;s [kjhnk FkkA vHkh eSa esjs nwljs HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk jgrk gwa rFkk xokg ihM 2 ikjley us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd esjs firkth dks xqtjs 10&12 lky gks x;s gSA esjs firkth ds 4 yM+ds gSA lcls cM+k eksguyky] fQj paikyky] rhljs uEcj ij enuyky o pkSFks uEcj ij eSa gwaA ekrkth ftank gSA esjs firkth ds nks edku gSA nks edkuksa esa eSa o esjs HkkbZ enuyky rFkk esjh cfgu o ekrk nksuksa edkuksa esa lkFk jgrs gSaA eksguyky o paikyky lkaxk okyh xyh esa fdjk;s ij jgrs gSA /keZiky us eksguyky ls edku fdjk;s [kjhnk FkkA eksguth dks edku dh vko';drk gS D;ksafd ;s fdjk;s ij jg jgs gSaA eksguth ds nks yM+ds o nks yM+fd;ka gSA vc ge lHkh HkkbZ vyx jgrs gSA mijksDr lk{; ls ;g lkfcr ekuk tkos fd oknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh futh ,oa ;qfDr;qDr vko';drk gSA vr% bl rudh dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkosA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk rdZ gS fd oknh us vius okn esa dFku fd;k gS fd mlus jgus ds fy;s fooknxzLr edku dks [kjhnk Fkk rFkk vius ftyk U;k;ky;] ckyh ds ewy okn dk izn'kZ ,&1 jftLVMZ foØ; i= esa izfroknh /keZiky foØsrk us ;g jftLVMZ foØ; i= esa edku dk dCt oknh dks lqiqnZ dj nsus dk dFku fd;k gS tks foØ; i= nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; Lohd`r nLrkost gS ftlds vuqlkj oknh us edku dk dCtk izkIr dj fy;k Fkk ysfdu mlh fnu fdjk;k fpV~Bh ds }kjk fookfnr ifjlj izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij ns fn;k x;k ftlls oknh dk ;g dFku xyr lkfcr gksrk gS fd oknxzLr ifjlj dks mlus Lo;a ds jgus ds fy;s [kjhn fd;k gks rFkk Lo;a eksguyky us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g dFku dgh Hkh ugha fd;k fd eSa fdjk;s ds edku esa jgrk gwaA oknh xokg ih M 1 eksguyky us vius eq[; c;ku esa ;g dgk gS fd vHkh eSa esjs nwljs HkkbZ;ksa ds lkFk jgrk gwa tcfd xokg ih M 2 ikjley us oknh eksguyky dks fdjk;s ds edku esa jgus dk dFku fd;k gS tks loZFkk xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gS blfy, mDr rudh dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkosA eSaus ekuuh; vius ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ckyh ds U;k;ky; dh ewy i=koyh ds izn'kZ 1&, dk voyksdu fd;k ftlesa foØsrk us edku dk dCtk lqiqnZ dj fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS ftlls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd oknh us edku dks Ø; djrs le; fnukad 19-11-75 dks dCtk izkIr dj fy;k ysfdu mlh fnu tfj;s fdjk;kukek izn'kZ 1 oknh }kjk izfroknh dks fookfnr edku fdjk;s ij ns fn;k x;k ftlls oknh dk ;g dFku lansgiw.kZ gks tkrk gS fd mlus fookfnr edku dks Lo;a ds jgus ds fy, [kjhnk gksA blds vykok oknh Lo;a eksguyky us vius c;kuksa esa dgha Hkh ;g dFku ugha fd;k fd og paikyky] ikjley ds ;gka lkaxk xyh esa fdjk;s ij jgrk gS tcfd ihM ikjley tks oknh dk HkkbZ gS mlus vius c;kuksa esa oknh ds fdjk;s ds edku esa jgus dk dFku D;k gS tks c;ku fojks/kkHkklh gSA oknh us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fdjk;k fpV~Bh fnukad 19-11-75 dks fy[kokbZ xbZ vkSj mlls iwoZ Hkh izfroknh dk fooknxzLr edku ij dCtk FkkA ;fn oknh dks jgus ds fy, edku dh vko';drk gksrh rks og fdjk;kukek izn'kZ&1 esa bl ckr dks fy[kok ldrk Fkk fd mls fookfnr edku dh jgus ds fy, t:jr Fkh blfy, izfroknh fdlh fuf'pr vof/k ds i'pkr~ mls dCtk lkSaik ns ysfdu bl izdkj dk dksbZ Bgjko fdjk;kukek esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA gkykafd oknh us ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og nwljksa ds edkuksa ekfyd ds dksbZ c;ku ugha djk;s x;s rFkk fdjk;k Hkqxrku laca/kh dksbZ jlhn oknh us is'k ugha dh gS ftlls oknh ds fdjk;s ij jgus ds dFku ij lansg mRiUu gksrk gSA oknh us ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds firkth thfor Fks rc r[krx<+ esa nks edku Fks vkSj mlds nksuksa NksVs HkkbZ vyx vyx nksuksa edkuksa esa jgrs gS rFkk nksuksa HkkbZ;ksa dh 'kkfn;ka ugha gqbZ gSA bl xokg us ftjg esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd ;g xyr gS fd ge lHkh HkkbZ o ekrkth ,d gh edku esa jgrs gks o nwljk edku [kkyh iM+k gksA esjs ifjokj ds nks IykWV vkSj gS ftuls esjk dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugha gSA blh izdkj xokg ih M 2 ikjley us ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd eksguyky us ckjg lky ls xyr jg jgk gS o eksguyky dks caVokjk esa edku fn;k x;k tcfd eksguyky us caVokjs esa Lo;a ds edku vkus dk dFku ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk egRoiw.kZ rF; dks U;k;ky; ls Nqikus dk dFku fd;k gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS fd oknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh O;fDrxr ,oa ;qfDr;qDr l)koiwoZd vko';drk gSA vr% rudh la[;k nks dks lkfcr djus esa oknh ds lQy ugha gksus ls bldk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vr% okn oknh fo:) izfroknh ckcr c<+k fdjk;k o dCtk edku e; [kpkZ [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fMØh ipkZ mijksDrkuqlkj cuk;k tkosaA lgh ¼ds-lh- [kaMsyoky½ flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d-[k-½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV] izFke oxZ] lqesjiqj ¼ikyh½** Order dated 07.11.2003 of the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali in Civil Appeal Decree No.32/95 – LRs. of Mohanlal vs. Dharampal:- ^^17- fook|d la[;k 2 dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk bl rudh ds laca/k esa Hkh oknh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa dgha ;g rF; of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd oknxzLr edku dh oknh dks vius futh vko';drk ,oa l)koukiwoZd vko';drk gksA bl fook|d ds laca/k esa oknh us ek= ;g dgk gS fd ;g edku eSaus esjs jgus ds fy, [kjhnk Fkk] fdUrq oknh }kjk vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa fd;s x;s mDr dFku fo'oluh; ugha gS] D;ksafd ;fn oknh us vius Lo;a ds jgus ds fy, ;g edku izfroknh ls [kjhnk Fkk rks og mDr edku dks izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij ugha nsrkA tc oknh dks vius Lo;a ds jgus ds fy, edku dh vko';drk Fkh rks mlus fdu dkj.kksa ls izfroknh dks ;g edku fdjk;s ij fn;k] bl laca/k esa oknh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa fdlh izdkj ds dFku ugha fd;s gSA oknh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g Hkh ugha crk;k gS fd mlds jgus ds fy, Lo;a dk dksbZ edku ugha gS] ftu dkj.k mls vU; fdlh edku esa jguk iM+ jgk gks ,oa mls edku dh vko';drk eglwl gks jgh gksA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh oknxzLr ifjlj dh mls O;fDrxr] ;qfDr;qDr ,oa l)koukiwoZd vko';drk dks izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fook|d la[;k 2 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) djus esa esjs er esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us rF;kRed ,oa dkuwuh =qfV gqbZ gSA 18- fook|d la[;k 3 ds laca/k esa i=koyh ij tks lk{; vk;h gS mlds vuqlkj oknh o mlds HkkbZ;ksa ds nks edku mlds firk ds [kjhn'kqnk gksuk crk;s x;s gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vuqlkj izfroknh /keZiky ds ikl oknxzLr edku ds vykok vU; dksbZ edku jgus ds fy, miyC/k gks ,slh dksbZ lk{; oknh izLrqr ugha dj ik;k gS] u gh izfroknh /keZiky ls fd;s x;s izfrijh{k.k esa ,sls dksbZ rF; vk;s gS] ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd izfroknh /keZiky ds ikl oknxzLr edku ds vykok vU; dksbZ edku jgus ds fy, miyC/k gksA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vuqlkj oknxzLr edku izfroknh /keZiky us oknh ls mlds ikl vU; dksbZ edku miyC/k ugha gksus dh otg ls gh fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa rqyukRed n`f"V ls csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr gksus ls izfroknh dks vf/kd vlqfo/kk gksuk ekurs gq, fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us rudh la[;k 3 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) o izfroknh ds i{k esa djus esa esjs er esa fdlh izdkj dh rF;kRed ,oa dkuwuh =qfV ugha dh gSA vkns'k 24- ifj.kkeLo:i vihy vihykaV [kkfjt dh tkrh gSa ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk nhokuh ewy izdj.k la[;k 101@79 eksguyky cuke /keZiky esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 3-6-95 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, i{kdkjku [kpkZ viuk viuk ogu djsaA lgh ¼jkepUnz >kyk½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ckyh] ftyk ikyh** 3. The present second appeal was admitted by this Court on 03.08.2011, framing the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- “(i) Whether in view of issue nos.1 and 2 having been decided in favour of defendant about conditional sale, the courts below were justified in refusing decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity? (ii) Whether in the absence of any pleading about bonafide necessity, the suit for eviction can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff?” 4. Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-landllord submits that even though the defendant-tenant had lost in a suit for specific performance filed by him on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 19.11.1975 between the parties for purchase of the suit property by the defendant-tenant, on the ground of limitation, the learned courts below while discussing the said issue, clearly found that the question of title was not relevant to be decided in eviction cases under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. But on the issues of default and bonafide need, they cursorily found, vide the afore-quoted findings, that since the need of the landlord was not stipulated in the rent note executed by the defendant-tenant, which was admitted even in the written statement filed by the defendant-tenant, and also in the course of evidence by him, the learned courts below did not find the bonafide need as established by the landlord and refused to grant the eviction decree to the plaintiff-landlord. Mr.Alkesh Agarwal submitted that the need of the landlord was not only contained in the rent note executed by the defendant-tenant, but in the evidence of the plaintiff recorded by the learned trial court also, such need of residential house for the plaintiffs' family was reiterated by them, and therefore, the findings, in this regard, of the learned courts below, are perverse, and deserve to be reversed by this Court. 5. 5. Refuting the counter argument of Mr.T.S.Champawat, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant, Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord urged that the observations made by the learned trial court in the suit for specific performance filed by the tenant, that if the suit was not to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, the plaintiff-landlord would be entitled to decree for specific performance, are of no relevance in the present eviction suit, since the question of title cannot be decided in the present proceedings, and as far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, that was admitted by the defendant-tenant in the present case, and therefore, the evic-tion decree deserves to be granted by this Court in the present second appeal. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. - (2005) 8 SCC 252 , Prativa Devi vs. T.V.Krishnan - (1996) 5 SCC 353 , Satyawati Sharam vs. Union of India – (2008) 5 SCC 287 , State of Maharashtra & anr. vs. Super Max International Private Ltd. & Ors. - (2009) 9 SCC 772 = 2010(2) RLW 1263 (SC), and of this Court in the cases of LR's of Prakash vs. Poornima (SBCSA No.132/2009, decided on 11.05.2011) and Denzil Najrath vs. LR's of Balwant Singh & Ors., 2011 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1217, to support his contention about the landlord being the best judge of his needs. 7. Mr.T.S.Champawat, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant however, emphatically submitted that the plaintiff-landlord is bound by the principle of “Issue estoppel” and the findings and observations given by the learned trial court, namely, Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali in its judgment dated 05.02.1993 in specific performance suit that the plaintiff, having accepted the part consideration of Rs.13,000/-, is bound by the said findings, even though the suit for specific performance was ultimately rejected by the said court only on the ground of limitation, and apart from the principle of “res judicata”, the principle of “issue estoppel” would be sufficient to refuse the eviction decree in the present case. Therefore, the learned courts below were justified in refusing the same. Therefore, the learned courts below were justified in refusing the same. He submitted that even though the question of title may not be decided or may not be relevant in the eviction cases, but the general principle of “issue estoppel” can be applied even to such cases, and therefore, in the present case, the questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the defendant-tenant and the decrees of the learned courts below, concurrently rejecting the eviction prayer of the plaintiff deserve to be upheld. 8. The relevant portion of the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali in its judgment dated 05.02.1993 passed in a suit for specific performance, as quoted by the learned trial court in the present suit, are quoted again here, for ready reference:- ^^ekuuh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] ckyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 5-2-93 esa vafre iSjk la[;k 9 dk fuEu lkj Hkh mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxk& ^^;gka ij ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr gS fd ;fn okn le;kof/k esa ekuk tkosa rks fuf'pr rkSj ls oknh 2000@& :i;s rFkk 2000@& :i;s fnukad 19-11-75 ls fnukad vnk;xh rd 1 % izfrekg dh nj ls C;kt o fnukad 19-11-75 ls 11-6-76 rd dh vof/k rd dk 13000@& :i;s ij 1 % izfrekg dh nj ls C;kt dh dqy jde izfroknh dks nsus ij laifr dk foØ; okfil oknh vius i{k esa izfroknh ls fu"ikfnr djkosa o iath;u dh vkKkfIr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksrkA ;g okn le;kof/k esa ugha gS] vr% [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA** 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgments of the learned courts below. 10. In the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 787 = RLW 2005(3) SC 399, relied upon by Mr.T.S.Champawat, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between the principles of “issue estoppel” and “res judicata”, in the following terms:- “There is a distinction between “issue estoppel” and “res judicata”. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine of issue estoppel is invoked against a party. If an issue is decided against a party, the party would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine of issue estoppel is invoked against a party. If an issue is decided against a party, the party would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by accord. However, the doctrine of “issue estoppel” as also “cause of action estoppel” may both be attracted. A cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical issues are raised, in which event, the latter proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings. In such an event the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided save and except allegations of fraud and collusion.” 11. Mr.T.S.Champawat, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Unnikrishnan & Anr. vs. V.K.Mahanudevan & Ors., 2014 AIR SCW 596 to support his contention that the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment is not relevant, while applying the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel, and such judicial decisions have a binding force. 12. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar by Mr.T.S.Champawat, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant dispassionately, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by Mr.T.S.Champawat is off the remark and cannot be accepted. There may be a fine distinction between the principle of issue estoppel and res judicata as a principle of law, as explained in the afore-quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but while applying the issue estoppel also, the necessary condition is that even an issue is decided against a party, the party would be estopped from “raising the same in the latter proceedings”. 13. In the present case, the plaintiff-landlord is not raising the same issue. In the present case, he is neither denying existence of the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance was based, nor the fact of any consideration passing under that agreement. In fact, the issues decided by the competent court in the suit for specific performance are neither raised, nor pressed in the present eviction suit. In the present case, he is neither denying existence of the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance was based, nor the fact of any consideration passing under that agreement. In fact, the issues decided by the competent court in the suit for specific performance are neither raised, nor pressed in the present eviction suit. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 is a special law and a protection is given to the tenants against eviction from the suit premises, unless specified grounds under Section 13 of the Act are duly established by the landlord. The definition of “landlord” is deliberately made wide enough to include, besides owners, even the agents and the persons, who receive or are entitled to receive rent from the tenant. Therefore, the first sine qua non for filing eviction suit is to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the question of title of the property is irrelevant and cannot be gone into in such eviction cases. 14. It is well settled legal position of law and a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts do not permit this Court to invoke the issue estoppel, as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant to be applied in the present case, as far as question of title is concerned. In the present case, that will be traversing in the question of title, which albeit, on the basis of such findings quoted above, would only be an imperfect indication of the claim and the alleged title of the defendant-tenant over the suit property. But even such factors for claiming specific performance, the two basis tenets, namely, (i) a valid agreement to transfer the property between the parties exists, and (ii) there is an established readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to complete his part of the promise under that Agreement. Even though these two tenets are satisfied, it still remains a discertionary relief under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1967, whether to grant decree of specific performance or not, and cases after cases, the Courts have refused specific performance in such cases. Even though these two tenets are satisfied, it still remains a discertionary relief under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1967, whether to grant decree of specific performance or not, and cases after cases, the Courts have refused specific performance in such cases. Therefore, unless and until the decree of specific performance becomes final in favour of the tenant and he gets the title of the suit property, the tenancy does not get eclipsed, and while dealing with the eviction cases, the Courts cannot traverse in the field of factors to be established in a suit for specific performance. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant, Mr.T.S.Champawat must fail and is liable to be rejected, and the same is accordingly rejected. 16. Coming to the merits of the present case under the rent control and eviction grounds, this Court finds the perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, writ large. The relevant extract of the rent note would be apt to be quoted hereinbelow, for ready reference: fdjk;k fpV~Bh ,d eSa /keZiky iq= fHkdth Nhik fuoklh r[krx<+ cgSfl;r [kqn o drkZ[kkunku cgd Jh eksguyky th iq= tqgkjeyth tSu iksjoky fuoklh r[krx< dks dj nsrk gwa fd okds dLcs r[krx<+ esu jksM lnj cktkj esa vkidk ,d edku fuEu iM+ksl okyl eSaus vius tk;e t:jr gsrq vkils ekfld :i;s 40@& v{kjs :i;s pkyhl ij fdjk;s fy;k gS tks fdjk;k ekgokj dk ekgokj vkidks nwaxk & blesa nsjh ugha d:axk vkSj ftl oDr vki dgsaxs rc mlh oDr edku [kkyh dj vkidks lqqiqnZ dj nwaxkA edku vkxs ls vkxs fdlh vkSj dks fdjk;s ;k jgus okLrs ugha ns ldwaxkA edku esa fdlh izdkj dh rksM+ QksM+ ;k uqdlku ugha d:axkA bldk fdjk;k vkt ls pkyw jgsxkA ikMksl edku% 1- mRrj vkSj eq[; }kj vkxs jkLrk 2- nf{k.k iwB esa vackyky xqykcpan th 3- iwoZ esa dqu.key ohlkth 4- if'pe esa jaxjst dkle [kka mijksDr edku vkils fdjk;s ysdj ;g fdjk;k fpV~Bh eSaus jkth dqlh ls vkidks ckyh esa dj nh gS tks lR; gSA bfr fnukad 19-11-75 gk /keZiky jktw tsBey HkaMkjh MhM jkbZVj ckyhA Sd/- /keZiky Hkhdkth lk{kh% panuflag fdlksjflag th jktiqjk** 17. The rent note itself executed way back on 19.11.1975 for Rs.40/- per month stipulated that whenever the suit premises are needed by the landlord, the tenant would give the vacant possession of the same to the landlord. In the face of these terms, once the landlord comes to the Court and pleads that the suit house is required for his personal purposes or the purposes of his family, and reiterates those averments in the witness box before the learned trial court, nothing more, as a matter of fact, remains to be done by him, and the eviction decree is liable to be granted under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950, on such grounds of bonafide need established by the landlord. In the present case, the learned courts below have refused the decree, finding that since the rent note did not contain any stipulation for the same, which is factually wrong premise, and that the plaintiff did not reiterate his need in the evidence led by him, which is also not borne out from the statements recorded by the learned trial court, namely, PW-1 Mohanlal and PW-2 Parasmal, which, as quoted in the memo of appeal, are also quoted again here, for ready reference:- ^^3- -----vihy U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ fd oknh us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa viuh futh vko';drk ds ckjs esa of.kZr ugha fd;k gS] drbZ lgh ugha gSA oknh ih-M- 1 us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fuEu c;ku nsdj Li"Vr;k bls lkfcr fd;k gS& ^^edku eq>s jgus ds fy, pkfg;sA esjs firkth ds pkj yM+ds gSA nks 'kknh'kqnk gSA ;g edku esjs jgus ds fy, [kjhnk Fkk-----A** ih-M- 2 ikjley ds fuEu c;kuksa ls Hkh ;g rudh c[kwch lkfcr gS& ^^eksguth dks edku dh vko';drk gS] D;ksafd os fdjk;s ij jg jgs gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyus esa oSf/kd Hkwy v/khuLFk dh gS fd ;fn oknh dks edku dh vko';drk Fkh rks og fdjk;s fpV~Bh esa fuf'pr le;kof/k t:j fy[kokrk] tcfd oknh ds fy, ,slk fy[kok;k tkuk drbZ vko';d ugha Fkk] ;|fi HkkMk fpV~Bh ,Dl 1 esa Li"V :i ls ;g fy[kk gS& ^^ftl oDr vki dgsaxs] rc mlh oDr edku [kkyh dj vkidks lqiqnZ dj nwaxkA** bl izdkj nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij vk;h egRoiw.kZ lk{; ,oa lkexzh ds vuns[kh esa ek= d;kl ds vk/kkj ij viuk fu.kZ; fn;k gS] tks oSf/kd :i ls lgh ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh Hkkouk ds fo:) gSA** 18. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law framed above deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant. They are accordingly so answered, and the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is allowed. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts below forthwith. 19. They are accordingly so answered, and the present second appeal of the plaintiff-landlord is allowed. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts below forthwith. 19. In the circumstances, it is directed that the defendants-tenants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the plaintiff-landlord on or before 31.03.2017 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.1,000/- per month (Rupees One Thousand only) commencing from the month of March, 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 plaintiff-landlord also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The defendant-tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff-landlord within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The defendant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The defendants-tenants 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 plaintiff-landlord within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff-landlord shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.