Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.L. Mehta
Raja Laxman Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Regular First Appeal No. 115 of 1975
Decided On : 01/13/1987
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 106, 111 - LANDLORD AND TENANT - DETERMINATION OF TENANCY - SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS - RES IPSA LOQUITUR - DOCTRINE OF PERMISSIVE WASTE - VOLUNTARY WASTE - LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the owner of a building, leased it to the State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. During the tenancy, two ceiling fans were installed in the building by the department, and a portion of the roof fell down. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the wrongful act of the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendants were not negligent in installing the fans and that the plaintiff could not make out a case of negligence, omissions, or commissions against the defendant which resulted in the falling of the roof.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply in this case as the plaintiff had not shown any direct or proximate cause showing the negligence of the defendant. The court also held that the tenancy had been determined by surrender of tenancy rights and not by determination of tenancy, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to rent for the period during which the property remained out of his possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. 2. Whether the tenancy was determined by surrender of tenancy rights or by determination of tenancy. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent for the period during which the property remained out of his possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the precise cause of an occurrence is fully revealed by evidence which is accepted. In this case, the plaintiff had not shown any direct or proximate cause showing the negligence of the defendant. Therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. 2. Surrender of tenancy rights occurs when the tenant gives up his rights in the leased property to the landlord. Determination of tenancy occurs when the tenancy is terminated by the landlord or the tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In this case, the tenancy was determined by surrender of tenancy rights as the tenant had given up his rights in the leased property to the landlord by vacating the premises and informing the landlord that he could take possession. 3. The plaintiff was not entitled to rent for the period during which the property remained out of his possession because the tenancy had been determined by surrender of tenancy rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.
D.L. Mehta, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 47/73, dated 31st March 1975. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 12,337 on account of arrears of rent and damages for the wrongful act of the defendants plaintiff (respondent?), the property was leased to the State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department at the rate of Rs. 700/-per month w.e.f 27-6-1964.
2. Consequently, a part of the property, namely, the Swimming Pool was taken back by the landlord and the rent was reduced to Rs. 667/-. The plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint has stated that the Commercial Taxes Department was most reckless in installing two ceiling fans in a double storey house in the first floor in the month of May/June, 1969. It has been further stated that installation of two ceiling fans affixed on the roof of the hall fell down. It was further alleged that the fixation of the ceiling fans was improperly and insufficiently done and the southern half of the roof of the hall fell down and has also caused cracks in three walls of the hall. There is further allegation that 21 Jodhpuri Pattis also cracked. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 5,000/-on
account of damages to the property.
3. TheDy. Commissioner vide his letter dated 30th December, 1969 intimated the plaintiff that the department will vacate the building on 31st December; 1969. It was alleged that the building was not vacated even up to the date of the filing of the suit and, as such, the plaintiff has claimed the rent for the period from 1st January, 1970 and onwards. The plaintiff has filed a suit for Rs. 7,337/-, the rent for the month of January to November, 1970. Thus, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 12,337/-. Defendants submitted the written statement and denied the allegations made against them. It was further contended by the defendants that the property was vacated and the plaintiff was intimated to take over the possession of the vacant property. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs were intimated that the peaceful vacant possession of the plot was handed over to the plaintiff . It was further mentioned that even on 17th March, 1970 the plaintiff was informed that the disputed building has been vacated in the evening of 31st December, 1969. It was also alleged that the plaintiff vide letter No. 28th November, 1969 intimated the State that the vacant possession of the premises would be taken provided two months’ notice, electric charges for the current month and inter alia many other conditions referred to in the said letter are fulfilled. Learned Addl. District Judge framed the following issues:
1. Whether the disputed premises are owned and possessed by the plaintiffs joint Hindu family, of which he is the Karta and as such competent to file the suit?
2. Whether by the reckless use of the demised premises, the Commercial Taxes Department of the Govt. in installing two ceiling fans in the double storeyed hail on the first floor, the roof of the hail fell down and caused damages to the building?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-from the Department on account of the damages, suffered in the demised building?
4. Whether the Department had factually handed over the possession of the demised premises on 31-12-69 and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any rent thereafter?
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Article 299 of the Constitution of India?
6. Whether the notice under Section 80, CPC is not in accordance with law?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mandatory direction? If so, on what terms and conditions?
8. Relief ?
4. Learned Addl. District Judge decided issue No. in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit is maintainable. Similarly, issue No. 6 relating to the notice under Section 80 was decided in favour of the plaintiff Issue No. 7 was struck off Learned Addl. District
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
