9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. This is a defendants' appeal by special leave of this Court from the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1974 of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appellants' second appeal preferred from the Appellate judgment of the District Judge of Jaipur. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit against the appellants for their eviction after termination of their tenancy by service of a notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of that Court a contention was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 had not been extended to Chomu where the suit premises are situate. This contention was accepted and the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 23-l-1973. Subsequently it was found that the Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anchanda, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court is erroneous in law as it wrongly affirmed the decision of the District Judge on the question of the allegedly personal necessity of the respondents and without recording a finding that they required the premises bona fide for their own use. Counsel submitted that the statements in the plaint were too sketch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been recorded on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties. The appellants had adduced evidence to show that the respondents had more shops than the one in question and did not require it bona fide for their personal use. But the evidence adduced on their behalf was found to be too meagre as conceded also before the District Judge on behalf of the appellants. The issue was decided on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
