Honble JAIN, J.–The instant second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the landlord- plaintiff-appellant (for short, `the plaintiff-appellant) Roshan Bai was admitted by this Court on 8th of October, 1985 and following substantial questions of law were formulated:-

``1. That whether the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of pleadings can it be said that it is a default (wrongly written as ``default in place of ``denial) of title as if so whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the lease-deed can be used as rent note?

(2). During the course of arguments, this court further formulated following additional substantial questions of law on 3rd of August, 2006:-

``1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the finding of both the courts below in respect of issue No. 1 is perverse and based on misreading of evidence?

2. Whether the suit of eviction of tenant can be converted into a suit for title in respect of third person?

3. Whether Exhibit-1, the rent-note, is admissible in evidence fully or it is admissible only for collateral purpose?

(3). Arguments of both the parties were heard on aforesaid substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal.

(4). Briefly stated the facts of the case for adjudication of the aforesaid substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-respondent on 9th of March, 1970 in the lower court on the ground of default in making the payment of monthly rent, bona-fide necessity of the rented premises and denial of title of the plaintiff-appellant by the defendant respondent in respect of rented premises. It was pleaded in the plaint that there was one piece of land belonging to one Raj Bahadur S/o of Shri Shiv Shankar and out of this land, a land measuring 24 feet east west and 13.6 feet north south was taken on rent by the defendant-respondent Madan Lal for a period from `Kaartik Sudi Ekam Samvat 2014 to Ashaad Sudi 15 Samvat 2015 (nine months) at the rate of Rs. 5.50p. per month and the defendant-respondent Madan Lal took possession thereof and paid Rs. 10/- towards rent. The defendant-respondent Madan Lal executed a rent-note date 17th of November, 1957 (Exhibit-1) in favour of Raj Bahadur and the original `teharir i.e. rent-note is in possession of Raj Bahadur. The description of the rented/disputed land is given in Para No. 1 of the plaint. It was further pleaded that Raj Bahadur sold his aforesaid rented land as well as his land adjacent thereto situated towards the western side through registered sale-deed dated 11th of July, 1969 (Exhibit-6) to Nand Lal S/o of Shri Jagannath, and information about this sale was given by Raj Bahadur as well as Nand Lal, both, to defendant Madan Lal and it was directed that now rent may be paid to Nand Lal. Thereafter Nand Lal sold this land, purchased by him from Raj Bahadur, to plaintiff Roshan Bai through registered sale-deed dated 3.12.1969 (Exhibit -17) and information of this sale was also given by Nand Lal as well as the plaintiff to defendant Madan Lal and the defendant was directed to pay the rent of the rented land, in dispute, to plaintiff Roshan Bai. It was further pleaded that defendant Madan Lal paid the rent to Raj Bahadur in the sum of Rs. 10/- only during the period from 17.11.1957 to 11.7.1969, and the remaining rent was not paid by him. Thereafter no rent was paid to Nand Lal or to plaintiff Roshan Bai, therefore, he has committed a default in making the payment of rent continuously for more than six months and, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of eviction in her favour against the defendant. The plaintiff also sought eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of rented land. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff served a notice dated 20.11.1969 (Exhibit 8) on the defendant, terminating his tenanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document