Point of Law : There is concurrent finding of fact with regard to establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties qua subject property, which is not shown to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error, in considered opinion of this Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant (for brevity- ‘the defendant’) who suffers concurrent findings of facts against him vide judgement dated 26.4.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (for brevity- ‘the learned trial court’) decreeing the civil suit no.93/95, B.T. No.02/2010 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/plaintiffs for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit, which has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bandikui District Dausa (for brevity- ‘the learned appellate court’) vide its judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022 while dismissing civil regular appeal no.10/16, CIS Civil Regular Appeal No.45/2020, CNR No.RJDS060002882016.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that Smt. Kesar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents no.1/1 to 1/4 filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against Smt. Mooli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’), the predecessor-in-interest of appellant and the proforma respondents no.2/1 to 2/3 stating therein that she was owner of the subject property comprising of two rooms and a chowk, a part of her puccaa house, let out to the defendant vide rent note dated 6.10.1992 @ Rs.200 per month. It was averred that earlier, it was on rent with Shri Ram Swaroop S/o Bhagwana and Ramesh S/o Laxmi Narayan and the defendant. It was submitted that Shri Ram Swaroop vacated it on 10.3.1992 and Ramesh on 6.10.1992 executing a document admitting therein that after its vacation by him, it was let out to the defendant, his mother. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity and denial of title.

3. The defendant in her written statement denied the averments in the plaint. It was stated that she was in occupation of the subject premises as its owner.

4. The learned trial court framed nine issues including relief. The issue no.1 pertained to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit as aforesaid deciding the issue no.1, issue no.2 pertaining to default in payment of rent, issue no.3 related to reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, issue no.4 related to denial of title, in favour of plaintiff. The civil regular appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022.

6. Aggrieved against the judgement and decree dated 19.10.2022, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant is that findings of the learned court qua issue no.1 are perverse inasmuch as it was not appreciated that the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established between the parties. Relying upon Ex.A9, the note sheet of the Nagar Palika Bandikui, he submits that ownership of the defendant over the subject property was well established and hence, there was no occasion for the learned courts to have decided the issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, judgement dated 19.10.2022 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. The learned appellate court as also the learned trial court have recorded a concurrent finding as to establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties appreciating and analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the respective parties. The plaintiff has claimed the defendant to be her tenant on the strength of the rent note dated 6.10.1992 (Ex.2) which has been found to be proved by the learned courts. Shri Naresh (DW1), grandson of the defendant has feigned ignorance as to execution of the rent note dated 6.10.1992 by his grandmother when confronted during his cross examination. Similarly, S