Honble MADAN, J.–P.L. Bawa (defendant) has challenged judgment & decree dated 23.2.99 in civil suit No. 249/95 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City for his eviction.

(2). Facts complexed by the parties are epitomised thus. Admittedly, Bhawani Singh & P.L. Bawa were both fellow colleagues in the military service and having good friendship, so P.L. Bawa (defendant-appellant) was appointed by Bhawani Singh as his Principal Private Secretary on 6.11.85 followed by further assignments as Financial Controller-cum-Chief Administrator of the Jaipur Palace Hotels Ltd., Managing Trustee-cum-Secretary of Shri Shiella Mata Trust & Sawai Jaipur Relief Trust. Accordingly, both of them had admittedly their relationship as employer and employee and the defendant was put in use & occupation of Kothi No. 16, Civil Lines, Jaipur (suit premises) by way of allotment.

(3). However, the defendant was terminated from services of Bhawani Singh on 14.6.90 directing him to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to Dr. A.S. Paul, Financial & Legal Affairs Controller of the plaintiff, and his office was allegedly sealed during his leave in between 3.6.90 to 13.6.90 so he (PL Bawa) instituted a suit No. 196/90 seeking mandatory injunction on 19.6.90 wherein an agreement (Ex.3) undisputably was entered into between both of them out of Court on 27.6.90 on the terms and conditions amongst others-pursuant thereto the defendant withdrew his Suit No. 196/90 but did not hand over plaintiffs Kothi No. 16 (suit premises) Civil Lines, Jaipur by vacating it. Thus, such an act of not vacating the suit premises constrained the plaintiff to file present suit through Dr. A.S. Paul his Power of Attorney against the defendant with the prayer to grant decree for eviction being entitled under Sec. 13(1)(g) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short `the Act) & mesne profits for use & occupation of suit premises @ Rs. 2000/- per month w.e.f. 27.8.90.

(4). In written statement, the defendant denied the factum of his services being terminated on 14.6.90, but in additional pleas it was his case that he was employed on 6.11.85 at a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month plus other allowances including residential accommodation, and further holding charge of various companies/trusts. It was further contended that since during his leave his office was sealed on 7.6.90, he had filed a suit for permanent injunction but on 27.6.90 an agreement was executed between them. According to the defendant a sum of Rs. 3,41,462/- were outstanding against the plaintiff and until such an amount could have been paid, the present suit could not be filed inasmuch as he was continuing in service and further the plaintiff ought to have filed suit either for possession by paying proper court fees or for compliance of the agreement (Ex.3) and not for eviction and thus this suit was premature.

(5). As against the pleadings of the parties on record, nine issues were framed. In support of the pleadings, the plaintiff examined Dr. As Paul (Power of Attorney Holder) as PW1, besides Narayan Singh (PW2) whereas the defendant appeared as DW1 alongwith other two witnesses. Upon hearing arguments of both the parties trial Court by its judgment dated 23.2.99 decreed the suit for eviction and grant of mesne profits for use & occupation of 6.7.91 till vacation payment of Rs. 2000/- w.e.f. 6.7.91 till vacation provided proper court fees is paid within 15 days and two months time was granted to the defendant for vacation of the suit premises. Hence, this first appeal.

(6). First contention raised by the defendant is that since services of Dr. A.S. Paul Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff who has signed the plaint and appeared in the witness box, have been terminated by revocation deed dated 28.11.96, neither the suit could have proceeded with effect from 18.11.96 but also his evidence ought out have been read or admissible in evidence in support of the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document