Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 1277
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
Swaroop Devi (Smt.) & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Murti Bhagwan Satya Narainji - Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 213 of 2001
Decided On : October 01, 2007
N.K. Maloo, Counsel for defendant- Appellants; B.L. Mandhana, Counsel for Plaintiff- Respondent
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Sec. 13(1)(f) – Denial of title and tenancy of landlord by tenant in written statement – Landlord requested to include it in the grounds of eviction – Issue framed – Not raised objection – Ground of denial was not pleaded in eviction petition – Held – It was open for him to raise objection and plead that denial was bonafide – If he had done that the respondent could have applied for amendment of eviction petition – Now not open for him to say that the eviction decree could not be passed against him as the ground of denial of title was not pleaded in eviction petition.(Para 24)
¼d½ jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh fu;U=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk 13¼1½¼p½ & fyf[kr c;ku esa fdjk;snkj }kjk x`g Lokeh ds LoRo ,oa fdjk;snkjh ls badkj djuk & x`g Lokeh us bls csn[kyh ds vk/kkjksa esa lfEefyr djus dk fuosnu fd;k & fook|d fojfpr fd;k & vH;kifr ugha dh & badkj djus ds vk/kkj dk csn[kyh gsrq ;kfpdk esa vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bl vH;kifr dks mBkus ,oa ;g vfHkokd~ djus dh mls NwV Fkh fd badkj djuk ln~Hkkoh Fkk & ;fn mlus ,slk fd;k gksrk rks izR;FkhZ us Hkh csn[kyh gsrq ;kfpdk ds lakks/ku gsrq vkosnu dj fn;k gksrk & vc og ;g ugha dg ldrk fd mlds fo:) csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrh Fkh D;ksafd csn[kyh gsrq ;kfpdk esa LoRo ds badkj ds vk/kkj dk vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ¼in la[;k 24½
(b) C.P.C., Sec. 100 – Admission of second appeal – Held – Concurrent finding of facts of the Courts below – After amendment in Sec. 100 C.P.C. in 1976 second appeal can only be admitted on the substantial question of law involved therein – No substantial question of law involved in this appeal – Warrants no interference.(Para 39) Appeal dismissed in limine.
¼[k½ fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 100 & f}rh; vihy xzg.k djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fuEu U;k;ky;ksa ds rF;ksa ds leorhZ fu"d"kZ & o"kZ 1976 esa fl-iz-la- dh /kkjk 100 esa lakks/ku ds ipkr~ f}rh; vihy mlesa vUrxZLr fof/k ds lkjHkwr izu ij gh xzg.k dh tk ldrh & bl vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr izu vUrxZLr ughaA ¼in la[;k 39½ vihy vkjEHk esa gh [kkfjt dhA
(2). This second appeal on behalf of the defendant-tenant, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the plaintiff- respondent against the defendant-appellant, which has been decreed by both the courts below on the ground of denial of title as well as tenancy of plaintiff by the defendant.
(3). Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are as under-
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, in respect of rented premise, in the trial court, on 29.1.1980 wherein it was pleaded that the defendant took the suit premise, the description of which is mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint, from one Saubhagmal adopted son of Nathulal, on monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and executed a rent-note dated 12th July, 1978 (Exhibit-1) in favour of Saubhagmal. Shri Saubhagmal gifted the said property to the plaintiff through registered gift-deed dated 26th November, 1979 (Exhibit-2). The defendant has not paid the monthly rent of the rented premise since January, 1979, therefore, the defendant is a defaulter and thus liable to be evicted therefrom. Shri Saubhagmal also gave a right to the plaintiff to recover the due rent from the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 96/- for 12 months for the period from 1.1.1979 to 31.12.1979. It was also pleaded that tenant has also willfully caused substantial damage to the rented premise. It was further pleaded that there is a bona-fide requirement of the rented premise to plaintiff.
(4). The defendant filed his written-statement, on 19.5.1980 wherein he denied the contents of the plaint and pleaded that he never executed any rent-note in favour of Saubhagmal nor he took the disputed property on rent from him. He never remained tenant of Saubhagmal. Shri Saubhagmal has no connection whatsoever with the disputed house and the owner thereof is Mst. Gopi W/o Mohanlal, who had mortgaged the disputed property with the defendant about 8 to 10 years ago, and, as such, the defendant is in possession of the disputed property. It was also pleaded that the defendant is not tenant of any person in the disputed property.
(5). The plaintiff filed an application in the trial court on 25th July, 1980 stating therein that the defendant, in his written-statement, has denied the title and tenancy of the plaintiff as well as Saubhagmal, therefore, he has denied the title of landlord, therefore he is liable to be evicted on this ground also, and prayed for inclusion of this ground of eviction also in the suit and to frame an issue on it also. A copy of application was served upon the learned counsel for the defendant and the case was fixed for reply and arguments on application on 21st August, 1980. The defendant did not file any reply to the said application. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties and application, framed four issues on 21st August, 1980. Issue No. 1 was- as to whether the defendant took the disputed house on monthly rent of Rs. 8/- from Saubhagmal and executed a rent-note-agreement dated 12th July 1978. Issue No. 2 was- as to whether the defendant is a tenant in the disputed house of the plaintiff. Issue No.3 was - as to whether the defendant has denied the title and tenancy of landlord and he is liable to be evicted. Issue No. 4 was relating to relief.
(6). In support of their contentions, both the parties led oral and documentary evidence and, after hearing both the parties and examining the record of the case, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 5th March, 1990, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant, and consequently decreed the suit for eviction against the defendant from the disputed house.
(7). Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant. The first appellate court, vide its judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2001, affirmed the finding of the trial Court on all the issue
