Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.P. Tyagi
General Auto Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Hazari Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1 of 1975
Decided On : 08/26/1975
EJECTMENT - DEFAULT - DEPOSIT OF RENT - SECTION 13(4) OF THE RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - INTERPRETATION - 'FIRST DAY OF HEARING' - NOTICE TO QUIT - SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, who had purchased a building from the defendant's landlord, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for personal use and business purposes. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed against M/s. General Auto Agencies, which was not a juristic person, that he could not be declared a defaulter after depositing arrears of rent on the first date of hearing after being properly served with the correct copy of the plaint, that the notice to quit was defective, and that the plaintiff failed to prove his bona fide and reasonable necessity for getting a decree of eviction in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable against M/s. General Auto Agencies as it was a proprietorship firm of one Shri Sobhagmal Lodha who died before the suit was instituted, that the defendant was a defaulter as he did not deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing as required by Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, that the notice to quit was valid as it clearly conveyed to the defendant that the tenancy was to be terminated on the last day of the month of tenancy, and that the plaintiff had proved his bona fide and reasonable necessity for getting a decree of eviction in his favor.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable against M/s. General Auto Agencies, which was not a juristic person? 2. Whether the defendant could be declared a defaulter after depositing arrears of rent on the first date of hearing after being properly served with the correct copy of the plaint? 3. Whether the notice to quit was defective? 4. Whether the plaintiff failed to prove his bona fide and reasonable necessity for getting a decree of eviction in his favor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was maintainable against M/s. General Auto Agencies as it was a proprietorship firm of one Shri Sobhagmal Lodha who died before the suit was instituted, and therefore, the firm was not a juristic person. 2. The court held that the defendant was a defaulter as he did not deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing as required by Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The court interpreted the expression 'first day of hearing' to mean the first date fixed for the return of summons or settlement of issues, and held that the defendant was required to deposit the arrears of rent on that date even if he had not been served with a complete copy of the plaint. 3. The court held that the notice to quit was valid as it clearly conveyed to the defendant that the tenancy was to be terminated on the last day of the month of tenancy. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the notice was defective because it terminated the tenancy forthwith, holding that the expression 'hereby terminates' could not be read to mean 'terminated forthwith'. 4. The court held that the plaintiff had proved his bona fide and reasonable necessity for getting a decree of eviction in his favor. The court considered the plaintiff's evidence regarding his need for the premises for residential and business purposes, and found that the plaintiff had established a reasonable and bona fide necessity for getting the vacant possession of the premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the decree of ejectment passed by the trial court.
V.P. Tyagi, J.-This is defendant’s first appeal against the judgment and the decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated 21st September, 1974.
2. There is a building situate on the Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur known as Bhagwat Bhawan. A part of this building was rented out to defendant M/s. General Auto Agencies for the rent of Rs. 425 per month. According to the plaintiff this part of the building was sold by the owners of the building to the plaintiff on 7th November, 1963, for Rs. 48,499, Shri Mangilal the proprietor of the building who sold it to the plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 7th December, 1968 that the premises had been purchased by the plaintiff , and, therefore, rent may henceforth be paid to the plaintiff This notice was received by the defendant firm on 13th December, 1968 and it is alleged that thereafter the defendant started paying rent at the rate of Rs. 425 per month to the plaintiff and continued to pay it till February, 1969. It appears that the plaintiff did not accept the rent after February, 1969 and the money orders sent by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the payment of the rent was refused by the plaintiff A notice (Exhibit 5) was served on the defendant by the plaintiff on 3rd October, 1969 intimating him that the tenancy was terminated and that the defendant should hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff It was also mentioned in the notice that the plaintiff required the premises for his personal bona fide need for residential purpose as well as for carrying on the business of Chemical Limes produced by the plaintiff This notice did not bring the desired effect on the defendant and the defendant did not hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff The plaintiff was, therefore, compelled to bring the present suit for ejectment of the tenant as well as for the arrears of rent.
3. It may be mentioned that the suit was filed against General Auto Agencies through its manager Shri Bhanwar Lal Bordia.
4. A written statement was filed on behalf of Shri Bordia accepting that the suit premises were rented out to General Auto Agencies but he is not a tenant as the General Auto Agencies was a proprietorship firm of one Shri Sobhagmal Lodha who died before the suit was instituted by the plaintiff He further stated that he was a mere servant of the firm and, therefore, the plaintiff should have filed a suit against the proprietors of the firm. It was also alleged that M/s. General Auto Agencies was neither a partnership firm nor a body corporate and therefore it was not a juristic person hence a suit against M/s. General Auto Agencies was not maintainable. The bona fide and the reasonable need of the plaintiff for getting the premises vacated was also denied by the defendant. It was also averred that the premises rented out to M/s. General Auto Agencies were sold by the legal heirs of Mangilal in three bits. Besides the premises sold to the plaintiff , two pieces of land which were also the part of the defendant’s tenancy were sold out to two different persons and unless all the three owners of the leased out property join to terminate the tenancy, the plaintiff alone cannot claim that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by him and as such a notice Exhibit 5 which should have been given by all the three owners of the leased out property was bad in law.
5. Thedefendant denied that he was a defaulter. On the first day of hear ing i.e. or 21st April, 1970 the defendant brought to the notice of the Court that he was not served with the correct copy of the plaint, and therefore, the Court directed the plaintiff to supply the true copy of the plaint to the defendant and fixed 21st May, 1970 as the next date of hearing. On 21st May, 1970, the defendant tendered on behalf of the proprietors of the M/s. General Auto Agencies Rupees 12,225 as the arrears of rent and the interest on the amount for 27 months for which the rent had not been pa
AI
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
