Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : ARUN MADAN
JANTA TRAVELS PVT.LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR SETH - Respondent
C. F. A. 216 Of 1995
Decided On : 05/24/1996
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - DENIAL OF TITLE - LEASE-DEED - ESTOPPEL - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 13 (1) (F) - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 116.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds: (A) default in payment of rent; and (B) denial of title. The defendant-appellant had executed a registered lease-deed with the plaintiff-respondent on 25-2-1981 for a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The defendant-appellant committed default in payment of rent for the period 31-2-82 to March, 1983. The plaintiff-respondent served a notice on the defendant-appellant on 19-3-1983 terminating the tenancy and directing him to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The defendant-appellant paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- towards rent by cheque to the plaintiff-respondent on 21-4-83. The plaintiff-respondent read the covering letter attached to the cheque and realized that the payment of rent was made conditional. The plaintiff-respondent sent another notice claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises. The defendant-appellant disputed the title of the plaintiff-respondent and filed a written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and passed a decree of eviction against the defendant-appellant on the ground of denial of title under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court also passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent for realization of the rent due from the defendant-appellant in respect of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month till eviction. The defendant-appellant appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant-appellant has committed default in payment of rent as alleged?2. Whether the demand made by the defendant-appellant regarding proof of ownership in respect of the suit property amounts to denial of title of the plaintiff-respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The defendant-appellant had executed a registered lease-deed with the plaintiff-respondent on 25-2-1981 for a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. The defendant-appellant committed default in payment of rent for the period 31-2-82 to March, 1983. The plaintiff-respondent served a notice on the defendant-appellant on 19-3-1983 terminating the tenancy and directing him to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The defendant-appellant paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- towards rent by cheque to the plaintiff-respondent on 21-4-83. The plaintiff-respondent read the covering letter attached to the cheque and realized that the payment of rent was made conditional. The plaintiff-respondent sent another notice claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises. The defendant-appellant disputed the title of the plaintiff-respondent and filed a written statement. 2. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and passed a decree of eviction against the defendant-appellant on the ground of denial of title under Section 13 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court also passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent for realization of the rent due from the defendant-appellant in respect of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month till eviction. The defendant-appellant appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial court. 3. The defendant-appellant had attorned the plaintiff-respondent as their landlords by paying monthly rent of the premises during the pendency of the suit. The defendant-appellant was estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff-respondent under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. The defendant-appellant's denial of title was clear and unequivocal. The defendant-appellant had forfeited his tenancy rights in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 2-8-1995 passed by the trial court was confirmed. The defendant-appellant was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent within four months from the date of the judgment. The defendant-appellant was also directed to pay the arrears of rent, if any, including the future rent month by month till he vacates the suit premises.
ARUN MADAN, J.
( 1 ) JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-81995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 253/1995 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds :- (A) default in payment of rent; and (B) denial of title. A suit was filed on 21-11-1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the plaint it was specifically averred by the plaintiff that he had let out a portion of the premises in dispute which is situated opposite All India Radio, M. I. Road, Jaipur on 1-2-1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/vide a registered rent deed which was duly executed between the parties on 25-2-1981. The agreed rent was excluding house-tax, water and electricity charges. Since the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for the period 31-2-82 to March, 1983 and this default committed in tendering the rent to the plaintiff was for a period exceeding six months, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant through his counsel on 19-3-1983 whereby the tenancy of the defendant was terminated and he was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises subject to clearing the rent due. It was further averred in the plaint that some negotiation with regard to the payment of rent took place between the parties it Delhi, as a result of which on 21-4-83 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- towards rent by cheque to the plaintiff for the period ending January, 1983. Subsequently when the plaintiff read the covering letter attached to the cheque to be realised that the payment of rent was made conditional, since in the letter the plaintiff was asked to submit his title deeds and also a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid to the plaintiff as security by the defendant as per the terms incorporated in the rent deed. Thereafter the plaintiff again sent another notice claiming arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises but the defendant-appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit premises. During the hearing of the suit the defendant thought of a novel idea by disputing the title of the landlord and it is under these circumstances that the plaintiffrespondent was compelled to file the eviction suit which was decreed against the defendantappellant whereby the trial Court directed the recovery of the rent dues of Rs. 14,278. 75 and also directed the defendant to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 166. 75 per month to the plaintiff till the vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiff and also directed eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on both the grounds, i. e. , default in payment of rent and denial of title.
( 3 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant before the trial Court, it was contended inter-alia that a lease agreement was executed between the parties and registered on 25-2-1981 and the premises was handed over to the defendant by the father of the plaintiff Late Dr. V. Ratan. It was further contained in the written statement that terms and conditions of the said lease agreement were also settled by Late Dr. V. Ratan - who inducted the defendant into the possession of the suit premises, but since Dr. V. Ratan was of old age and was not in good health he had requested the defendant to execute the lease agreement in favour of his son Raj Kumar Seth, respondent herein. It was further contended by the defendant that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was also paid towards the security to the plaintiff as per the instructions of Late Dr. V. Ratan against a valid receipt. It was further contended by the defendant that Dr.
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
