C.M. Lodha, J.
1. These three appeals arise out of three suits filed by Durga Prasad for ejectment against three different parties in respect of different apartments in the same building situated in the town of Beawar.
2. The suits against Badrimal and Smt. Tikan Bai were decreed by the trial court and the judgments and decrees of the trial court were upheld by the first sppellate court. The suit against Shivenarain was also decreed by the trial court but the judgment and decree by the trial court were reversed by the first appellate court. Consequently, Baridmal and Smt. Tikan Bai have come in appeal against the decrees of eviction passed against them whereas the plaintiff Durga Parsad has filed appeal against Shivennarain from the dismissal of his suit by the first appellate court.
3. The common ground for ejectment taken in all the three cases was that the premises were required for construction of a 'Dharamshala'. a guest room and for providing accommodation to Sadhus etc. coming to the temple. It may be mentioned, here, that the building in question is said to be a trust property attached to the temple of Sheoji. In all the three cases it was prayed that the premises would be rebuilt to meet the requirements of the Trust. In the cases instituted against Badrimal and Smt. Tikan Bai neither any plan of the proposed construction was submitted, nor any permission obtained from the Municipality of Beawar was placed on the record. Not only that, it was not even specified as to which protions of the building would be required for reconstruction and which portions would be left in tact as they stand today. The courts below came to the conclusion that a case for reasonable and bonafide requirement by the landlord was made out. After these two cases had been argued at full length by the learned Counsel for both the parties, learned Counsel for the respondent landlord felt that there had been left deficiencies in setting up the plaintiff's care on account of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to give the necessary particulars as to the requirement of the landlord and therefore he prayed that the plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw the suits with permission to file fresh suits on the same cause of action subsequent to the institution of these suits the Trust has passed a resolution for reconstruction of the building.
4. As regards appeal No. 47571, even though some more material in the form of a resolution of the Trust and site-plan of the building as it stands today were produced, no further material has been submitted so as to make out a case for personal requirement by the Trust. It has therefore been prayed in this case also that the plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
5. It may be observed that in the case against Smt. Tikan Bai, the plaintiff had taken an additional ground that the defendant had sublet a part of the premises. However, it appears that the details of the alleged subletting are lacking. The evidence regarding sub-letting produced either way by both the parties is also in a confused state. learned Counsel fur the plaintiff however submitted that irrespective of the evidence, sub-letting had been admitted by the defendants in their written statements, whereas it has been urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the defendant did not understand the implications of the term 'subletting' which was mechanically used at the time of drafting of the written statement, otherwise from the trend of evidence it was abundantly clear that sub-letting was not admitted. It is submitted that what was sought to be admitted in the written statement was that the alleged subtenants were allowed to stay in the premises in dispute is within the knowledge of the landlord Durga Parsad. In this state of pleadings and evidence regarding sub-letting. I am of opinion that it would be proper not to give any decision in this respect either and leave the plaintiff to agitate this matter also in the fresh suit if so advised. I may further point out that the statements of the witnesses in all the cases have been recorded in a very cryptic and slip-shod manner.
6. Having carefully looked into the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on the record, and after having heard the arguments submitted by the learned Counsel on both the sides, I have come to the conclusion that the suits instituted by the plaintiff are liable to be defeated by reason of formal defect and there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit in each of the three appeals with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suits.
7. Accordingly, 1 partly allow all the three appeals, see aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts and grant permission to the plaintiff in each of the three suits to withdraw the suits with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suits. In the circumstances at the case, I leave the parties to pear their own costs throughout. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the record of each case.