Dave, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated the 21st December, 1957, reversing the decree of the Munsif, Jodhpur dated the 31st May, 1947.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the City of Jodhpur there is a house near Gulabsagar whose boundaries are given in the plaint. This house once belonged to Mangilal and Ballabhdas. They rented it out to the defendant-appellant on a rent of Rs.3/- p.m. This rent was,later on,raised to Rs.3/8. The exact dates on which the house was leased out by Mangilal Ballabhdas or the date on which the rent was increased have not been clarified by either party. Mangilal and Ballabhdas brought a suit against the appellant for ejectment, but it was dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs case is that Mangilal and Ballabhdas sold their house to him on 4.7.50. He therefore, brought a suit against the appellant for his eviction treating him as a trespasser, because the defendant did not attorn to him and he also questioned the validity of the house sale in the plaintiffs favour. In that suit, the defendants contention was that he was a tenant from Mangilal and Ballabhdas and therefore the plaintiff could not treat him as trespasser. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiffs favour, but on appeal by the defendant the decree was reversed by the first appellate court and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs then brought the present suit for ejectment of the defendant on the basis of tenancy. It was averred by him that the defendant had become his tenant from 4.7.50,i.e., the date on which the plaintiff purchased the property from Mangilal Ballabhdas,that the defendant thereafter did not pay him monthly rent, that an amount of Rs. 126/- was outstanding against the defendant on account of rent upto the date of the suit and therefore it was prayed that a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment should be passed against the defendant. It was also stated by the plaintiff that the defendant was not entitled to protection under sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. 17 of 1950) because he was defaulter and also because the plaintiff, who was upto this time living in a rented house, needed the house in dispute for his own personal use and occupation.

4. The defendant contested the suit on several grounds. In the first instance, it was urged by him that the house was not sold by Mangilal Ballabhdas to the plaintiff for Rs. 4000/-as asserted by the plaintiff and that the sale was fictitious and it was effected only for ousting the defendant from the possession of the disputed house. He also denied that the plaintiff wanted the house for his own use or that the defendant had become a defaulter. In view of the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues;—

(1) Whether the defendant was barred from raising the plea that the plaintiff was not the defendants landlord on account of the decision of the District Court, Jodhpur dated 30.4.54, according to which the relationship of landlord and tenant was held as established.

(2) (a) Whether the defendants objection that Mangilal Ballabhdas did not sell the house in dispute to the plaintiff on 4.7.50 for Rs. 4000/- was barred by the principle of res judicata and could not be raised.

(2) (b) If that objection is not barred by the principle of res judicata, then whether the plaintiff had purchased the house in dispute on 4.7.50 for Rs. 4000/- from Mangilal Ballabhdas.

(3) Whether the present suit was barred on the principles of res judicata, because the former suit for possession by the plaintiff were dismissed.

(4) Whether the plaintiff requires the house in dispute reasonably and bonafide for his own occupation?

(5) Whether the notice dated 23.12.54 given by the plaintiff to the defendant was not in accordance with sec. 106, Transfer of property Act.?

(6) Whether the defendant has not paid rent to the plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document