The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's request for clarification about the derivative title of the landlord, without renouncing the status as a tenant, may not be treated as denial of title. The court emphasized the tenant's right to seek such clarification and highlighted the absence of intentional and non-bonafide denial of title by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-Plaintiff-Landlord(hereinafter referred as "Plaintiff") preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 24-10-1997 in Appeal No.21/1996, passed by Additional District Judge, No.3 Alwar dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1994 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Scale) Alwar, in Civil Suit No.165/1985 whereby plaintiff’s suit for eviction of tenant from tenanted shop and recovery of rent was dismissed.

2. It appears from the record that plaintiff purchased the rented shop through registered sale-deed dated 10-9-1984 and instituted present eviction suit on 22-4-1985 on ground of denial of title invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter ’the Rent Act’). Plaintiff stated in the plaint that he purchased the rented shop from partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra and since the defendant was tenant in rented shop, he has become the tenant of plaintiff. It was claimed that partnership firm namely M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra has informed defendant vide notice dated 29-9-1984 about transferring of rented shop to plaintiff through registered sale deed. That apart plaintiff himself issued legal notice dated 29-9-1984 to defendant informing about the purchase of rented shop and asking him to pay the rent. Since in sale deed itself the plaintiff was allowed to recover arrears of rent falling due against defendant, therefore, rent was claimed from 1- 10-1983. It was averred that defendant vide reply notice dated 5- 12-1984 disputed the sale-deed of plaintiff as well as denied title of the plaintiff though admitted himself to be the tenant. It was averred that since conduct of defendant of denial of title of plaintiff has not been waived and the defendant is estopped by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act to dispute the title of plaintiff, therefore, he is liable to be evicted.

3. Defendant filed written statement on 2-8-1985. the defendant in his written statement did not dispute the plaintiff to be landlord subject to proof of purchasing the rented shop from M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra. The defendant took a defence that since he was tenant in rented shop of Deva Lal, through rent note dated 1-1-1980, Deva Lal informed him that he sold rented shop to partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra, hence, the defendant became tenant of the partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra and pay rent to its partner namely Ramesh. Now the plaintiff as well as one person Vijendra have informed vide notice dated 29-9-1984 that rented shop has been sold by Vijendra Kumar. The defendant went in dilemma since landlord and owner of the rented shop was partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra, and plaintiff claimed to have purchased the rented shop from Vijendra Kumar, therefore, the defendant deposited arrears of rent in the court under Section 19A of the Rent Act in the name of partnership frim M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra. The defendant by way of reply notice dated 5-12-1984 has just asked the plaintiff to clarify that from whom he purchased the rented shop and this askance/ seeking clarification may not be treated as denial of title.

4. On basis of pleadings of parties, the trial court framed four issues. Plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and exhibited documents. Defendant also examined himself and exhibited documents.

5. Considering evidence of witnesses of both sides and exhibited documents the trial court on Issue No.1, regarding non payment of rent from 1-10-1983, since defendant did not produce any document i.e. as money order receipt, or notice for bank account of landlord prior to depositing rent in court on 17-5-1984, came to the conclusion that although defendant committed first default benefit of first default was given, but the plaintiff was not entitled to evict the defendant, and decided the issue as such.

Issue No.2, regarding defendant’s notice dated 5-12-1984 (Ex.3