Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Hastimal S/o Sh. Kewalchand & Ors.
Vs.
Bhura Ram S/o Nopaji Suthar & Ors.
Hansraj S/o Sankal Chand & Ors.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.210, 209/2008. And S.B. CIVIL CROSS OBJECTION No.2/2012
Decided on : 13th February, 2015
Mr. Vikas Balia, Mr. Hemant Balani ]- for the appellants/plaintiffs/landlord.
Mr. Om Mehta, for the cross-objector/sub-tenant-Bhura Ram.
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the respondents/defendants/tenants. LR's of Sankalchand
Headnote:
Rent Control Act, 1950 - Section 13A – Tenants - Decreed – Suit for Eviction - Present second appeals, which was itself second round of litigation and first eviction suit of year filed by the landlord/plaintiff although decided in favour of landlord however no decree of eviction was granted on account of amendment in law of insertion of Section 13A in Act of 1950 and giving benefit of first default in payment of rent, no eviction was directed but present suit of year came to be decreed by learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhinmal, District: Jalore on after 24 years of trial - Present suit also had a chequered history and burden of arguments raised on behalf of defendants/tenants, mainly sub-tenant, real brother of original tenant namely and so also cross objection filed by was to convert this eviction suit under Rent Control Law into a title suit and that is what learned counsel for the Cross-Objector (Bhura Ram) tried his level best to do but as the well settled legal position is that question of title is not relevant in rent control eviction cases and once relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and established before trial court on the own admission of original tenant - Neither any question of law has been framed by coordinate bench of this Court while admitting present second appeals of the plaintiffs/landlord, nor such question of law as per settled legal position of law on the issue of question of title can be decided in eviction proceedings – Held, Parties at Bar this Court is of the considered opinion that first appellate court has erred in reversing eviction decree and findings returned on all the four issues deserve to be upheld, though eviction decree can be upheld on even a single ground under Section 13 of the Act of 1950 and all substantial questions of law framed by this Court deserve to be answered and are accordingly so answered in favour of appellants/plaintiffs and against defendants/tenants and therefore impugned part of judgment and decree of lower appellate court deserve to be quashed and set aside and present appeals of plaintiffs/landlord deserves to be allowed - Court with respect to the entire suit property is upheld - Defendants/ respondents/tenants namely defendants No.1 to 7 shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit property to appellants/plaintiffs within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before and shall pay mesne profit for period throughout from date of filing of suit per month till date of passing of eviction decree and thereafter shall pay mesne profits per per month and now shall pay per month commencing from on wards and will further continue to pay mesne profit each month by 15th day of next succeeding month or in advance to the respondents/plaintiffs also - Respondents/defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in trial court within three months and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court - It is made clear that if peaceful and vacant possession of suit premises is not handed over to respondent-plaintiff within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of decree in normal course appellants/plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke contempt jurisdiction of this Court - A copy of this judgment be sent to both learned courts below and parties concerned forthwith – Order accordigly.
BY THE COURT:
1. The eviction suit of 1982 in the present second appeals, which was itself the second round of litigation, and the first eviction suit of the year 1969 filed by the landlord/plaintiff although decided in favour of landlord, however, no decree of eviction was granted on account of amendment in law of insertion of Section 13A in the Act of 1950 and giving the benefit of first default in payment of rent, no eviction was directed but the present suit of the year 1982 came to be decreed by the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhinmal, District: Jalore on 08.07.2006, after 24 years of trial. The first appellate court, however, took two years to decide the appeal but setting aside the eviction decree passed by the learned trial court, allowed the defendants/tenants' appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 and thus the appellants/plaintiffs were required to file the present two second appeals under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, in which the cross-objector (Bhura Ram) has also filed his cross objections, though with delay, being Civil Cross Objection No.2/2012 in CSA No.210/2008 and all these three cases are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The present suit also had a chequered history and the burden of arguments raised on behalf of defendants/tenants, mainly the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, the real brother of original tenant, namely, late Sh. Sankal Chand, and so also the cross objection filed by Bhura Ram, was to convert this eviction suit under the Rent Control Law into a title suit and that is what Mr. Om Mehta, learned counsel for the Cross-Objector (Bhura Ram) tried his level best to do; but as the well settled legal position is that question of title is not relevant in rent control eviction cases, and once the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and established before the trial court on the own admission of the original tenant, late Sh. Sankal Chand of having executed the Rent-Note (Exhibit-1), was established, the entire effort of Mr. Om Mehta, to argue the case on behalf of Bhura Ram that he was not a sub-tenant of his real brother, but was the owner of the portion of the tenanted plot of land, in which he used to run his workshop as carpenter under the name of M/s Vishwakarma Industries was an exercise of futility. Neither any question of law has been framed by the coordinate bench of this Court while admitting the present second appeals of the plaintiffs/landlord, nor such question of law as per settled legal position of law on the issue of question of title can be decided in the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1950.
3. The factual matrix in nutshell, as narrated in the order of the learned trial court dated 18.07.2006 is as infra. The suit premises, a plot of land measuring 1620 square yards [54'x120' = 6480 Square Ft., divided by 4 = 1620 Square Yards (1 yard = 2'x2')] , is situated at Railway Station Road, Bhinmal, District: Jalore. The said plot of land was jointly owned by S/Sh. Pratapmal S/o Hastimal and Bhabootmal S/o Oakhraj, and after the death of Pratapmal, his portion was sold by his legal representatives, namely, Pukhraj, Bhupatmal and Mst. Bhanwari D/o late Sh. Pratapmal, in favour of plaintiff No.2, Jawantraj S/o Shivraj and plaintiff No.2, Champalal S/o Jawantraj, on 23.07.1981. The Exhibit-1 is the Rent-note, which was executed on 09.03.1964 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Hastimal S/o Sh. Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Bastimal, for a monthly rent of Rs.13.50 per month by the original defendant/tenant Sankal Chand S/o Nopaji Suthar. Sankal Chand and Bhura Ram, are sons of Sh. Nopaji Suthar and the original tenant, Sankal Chand died on 16.04.1979 and is now represented by his legal heirs, Hansraj, Manaram, Jassaram, Babulal, all sons of late Sankal Chand, and Smt. Oti Wd/o late Sankal Chand, Mst. Shanta D/o Sankalchand. The defendant No.7, Bhuraram S/o Nopaji was also impleaded in the eviction suit as sub-tenant.
4. Initially, the suit No
