LODHA, J.—This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.

2. The facts of the case are rather uncommon, and an interesting question has been raised as to the rights of a sub-tenant. One Nandkumar leased out a Gokha (a sort of covered raised platform outside the house) to the plaintiff Mangumal in 1950 A. D at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. Subsequently Mangumal look on lease an open piece of land situate near the Gokha from the Municipal Council, Jaipur on Rs.12/-per month in the year 1954. On 19.2.1961 Mangumal sub-let the Gokha as well as the open land on which a cabin had been fixed to the appellant Kewalram on a rent of Rs. 60/- per month. But in order to conceal the sublease made by him, Mangumal got executed a deed of partnership between him and the said Kewalram. This was obviously done in order to save themselves from ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 on the ground of subletting. It appears that for some time the parties palled on well. However, after a few years the parties fell out and on 30.11.65 Mangumal filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership against Kewalram on the basis of the partnership deed executed between them on 19 2-1961. Kewalram resisted the suit on the ground that the alleged partnership deed was merely a device to conceal the sub-lease made by the plaintiff in his favour in respect of the Gokha and the open land. Mangumal, however, got the suit dismissed as withdrawn on 14-2-1968. It seems, however, that he had made up his mind, before withdrawing the suit, to bring another suit lor ejectment on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant and so he prepared the ground for the same. He served a notice of ejectment dated 22nd September, 1967 on Kewalram alleging therein that Kewalram was his tenant and had committed default in payment of rent and the premises in question meaning thereby the Gokha and the land over which the cabin had been constructed, was required for his personal use. He filed the present suit on 2.3.1968 for ejectment against Kewalram on two grounds: (i) default in payment of rent, and (ii) personal necessity. Defendant Kewalram resisted the suit. He denied the plaintiffs personal necessity for the premises in question as well as the alleged default in payment of rent. He further pleaded that so far as the Gokha was concerned he had attorned in favour of its owner Nandkumar and consequently the sub-lease with respect to the Gokha came to an end and Mangumal could not claim ejectment in respect of it.

3. After recording the evidence produced by the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City No. 4 by his judgment and decree dated 24-5-1971 decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment in respect of the cabin but dismissed it in respect of Gokha. The rent for the cabin was decreed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, both the parties filed appeals and the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City by a single judgment dated 4-9-1972 allowed the plaintiffs appeal in part and granted a decree for ejectment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Gokha also. As a necessary corollary the decree for arrears of rent was also increased so as to include the rent for the Gokha at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. In other words arrears of rent were decreed at the rate of Rs 60/- per month. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City the defendant Kewalram has come in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the following three points in support of his case:

(i) Notice of ejectment was not valid.

(ii) The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as he had taken inconsistent pleas in the plaint, and

(iii) that relationship of landlord and tenant had been established between the alleged subtenant Ke

Click Here to Read the rest of this document