Modi, J.—This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Dahchand in a suit for rent and ejectment. The Civil Judge Doongarpur dismissed the suit but on appeal the learned District Judge Udaipur decreed it for a sum of Rs. 230/-being the arrears of rent from the 2nd February, 1954, to the 1st March, 1956, though impliedly that court also maintained the dismissal of the suit so far as the relief of ejectment was concerned.

2. The material facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiff respondent Dadamchand obtained a money decree against Gulabchand, brother of Dahchand, who is the appellant before this Court. In execution of that decree Dadamchand brought the suit house for sale alleging it to be the property of Gulabchand. Dadamchand purchased it at a court-sale, and there is material on the record to show that he was put in possession of it on the 2nd February, 1954, vide the Sales-Ameens report Ex. 2. As things transpired, the appellant Dahchand executed the rent-note Ex. 1 with respect to this house in favour of the plaintiff on the same date agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-to the latter. It is this rent-note which is the basis of the present suit, the plaintiffs case being that the defendant had not paid the rent stipulated therein right from the 2nd February, 1954, upto the 1st March, 1956, Meanwhile, Gulabchand challenged the execution-sale which had been made in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that he had not complied with the requirements of O. 21, r. 85 C.P.C. and therefore the sale was vitiated altogether. The trial court turned down his prayer. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Udaipur, by his judgment dated the 26th April, 1954, set aside this sale. An appeal from that judgment was then brought to this Court, and this was dismissed by me by my judgment dated the 25th July, 1957, Ex. 3. It was held by me that the failure on the part of the plaintiff who was the decree holder there to deposit the balance of the purchase price within 15 days from the date of the sale as required by O. 21, r. 85 C.P.C. could not but have the effect of vitiating the sale and the position was as if no sale had taken place. The judgment of the learned District Judge was confirmed accordingly.

3. It is in these circumstances that the present suit came to be instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the basis of the rent note Ex. 1 referred to above on the 5th July, 1956.

4. The defendant resisted the suit. He admitted to have executed the rent-note Ex. 1 but contended that he had never been put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. It was further contended that the sale on which the plaintiff relied as the basis of his title as a landlord had been set aside by the District Court on the 26th April, 1954, and that decision had been upheld by this Court on the 25th July, 1957, and, therefore, his title to bring the present suit had come to an end and consequently it deserved to be dismissed.

5. The trial court held in favour of the defendant on both the points adverted to above and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the first courts decision on each of these two points but contented himself by passing a decree for arrears of rent only. The plaintiff was obviously satisfied with this decree and, therefore, he has not challenged it any further, and it is only the defendant who has come up in second appeal to this Court.

6. I propose to dispose of this appeal on the assumption that the defendant appellant had been put into possession of the suit property under the rent-note Ex.1.

7. The only further question for determination then is whether the learned District Judge was right in decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of rent in the circumstances of the present case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I have come to the conclusion that this decree cannot be sustained in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document