JUDGMENT
A.C. Goyal, J.
1. This is the second appeal by the defendant- tenant.
2. The plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai instituted a suit for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the defendant- appellant is the tenant in the suit shop (go-down) on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for last so many years. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable and bonafide requirement.
3. Vide written statement having admitted the tenancy the grounds of eviction were denied. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 (South), Kota vide judgment dated 26.4.2004 decided the issues of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement, comparative hardship and partial eviction in plaintiff’s favour and thus decreed the suit. It is made clear that the plaintiff Smt. Dropadi Bai died during the pendency of the suit, hence Smt. Kaushalya Devi was impleaded as legal representative. First appeal filed by the defendant-tenant was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.9.2004 by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Smt. Kaushalya Devi admitted in cross-examination that she received the entire rent and thus no case of default in payment of rent and striking out the defence against eviction was made out and she further admitted in cross-examination that she has no agricultural land in her name, hence pleaded requirement is not proved. It was also contended that prior to decision of the Trial Court on 26.4.2004 the case was remanded twice to the Trial Court but the Trial Court decided the suit third time in the same manner and thus findings are perverse and substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal.
5. On the other hand, it was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the findings on both the issues are concurrent and the same are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the defence against eviction was struck out, hence no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the judgments of the two courts below and am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The Trial Court determined provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) but the defendant-tenant failed to deposit the same, hence defence against eviction was struck out by the Trial Court. The findings of the Trial Court on the issue of default and striking out the defence against eviction were affirmed in the first appeal. Both the courts below properly considered the material evidence on this issue and I find no reason to interfere with the said findings.
7. As far as the issue of reasonable and bonafide requirement is concerned it was plaintiff’s case that the suit shop is being used as a go-down and the plaintiff requires this shop for storage of their agricultural produce. Both the courts below having taken into consideration the material evidence decided this issue and the issues of comparative hardship and partial eviction in her favour. No doubt, Smt. Kaushalya Devi admitted in cross-examination that she has no agricultural land in her own name but it is specifically stated in her affidavit that her husband and father-in-law have got agricultural lands and the suit shop is required for storage of agricultural produce from the fields belonging to her husband and father-in-law. Nothing contrary to the above statement has come in cross-examination. Simply on the ground that she has no agricultural land in her own name is no ground to discard the pleaded requirement which has been found proved by the two courts below. In view of the entire discussion made hereinabove, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.
8. Consequently, this second appeal alongwith stay application is dismissed at the admission stage.