HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 75/1998

1. Niranjan Lal (since deceased) S/o Shri Pyare Lal Data, R/o

Bhagwati Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar (Rajasthan)

1/1. Vijay Data S/o late Shri Gangadeen Data R/o Bhagwati

Sadan, Swami Dayanand Marg, Alwar (Rajasthan)

1/2. Daya Kishan Data S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Data R/o 7

Shubham Enclave, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

---- Plaintiff-Appellant

Versus

Lala Ram S/o Shri Nathuram, Mohalla Sheo Lal Pura, Behind

Suganabai Ki Dharamshala, Alwar

----Defendant-Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Amol Vyas

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Ram Dayal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON

: 05/04/2022

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON

: April _13^th_, 2022

BY THE COURT:

1.

Appellant-Plaintiff-Landlord(hereinafter referred as "Plaintiff")

preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing

judgment and decree dated 24-10-1997 in Appeal No.21/1996,

passed by Additional District Judge, No.3 Alwar dismissing appeal

and affirming the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1994 passed

by Civil Judge (Senior Scale) Alwar, in Civil Suit No.165/1985

whereby plaintiff’s suit for eviction of tenant from tenanted shop

and recovery of rent was dismissed.

(2 of 13)

[CSA-75/1998]

2.

It appears from the record that plaintiff purchased the rented

shop through registered sale-deed dated 10-9-1984 and instituted

present eviction suit on 22-4-1985 on ground of denial of title

invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises

(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter `the Rent

Act’). Plaintiff stated in the plaint that he purchased the rented

shop from partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra and since

the defendant was tenant in rented shop, he has become the

tenant of plaintiff. It was claimed that partnership firm namely

M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra has informed defendant vide notice

dated 29-9-1984 about transferring of rented shop to plaintiff

through registered sale deed. That apart plaintiff himself issued

legal notice dated 29-9-1984 to defendant informing about the

purchase of rented shop and asking him to pay the rent. Since in

sale deed itself the plaintiff was allowed to recover arrears of rent

falling due against defendant, therefore, rent was claimed from 1-

10-1983. It was averred that defendant vide reply notice dated 5-

12-1984 disputed the sale-deed of plaintiff as well as denied title

of the plaintiff though admitted himself to be the tenant. It was

averred that since conduct of defendant of denial of title of

plaintiff has not been waived and the defendant is estopped by

virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act to dispute the title of

plaintiff, therefore, he is liable to be evicted.

3.

Defendant filed written statement on 2-8-1985. the

defendant in his written statement did not dispute the plaintiff to

be landlord subject to proof of purchasing the rented shop from

M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra. The defendant took a defence that

since he was tenant in rented shop of Deva Lal, through rent note

(3 of 13)

[CSA-75/1998]

dated 1-1-1980, Deva Lal informed him that he sold rented shop

to partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and Vijendra, hence, the

defendant became tenant of the partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and

Vijendra and pay rent to its partner namely Ramesh. Now the

plaintiff as well as one person Vijendra have informed vide notice

dated 29-9-1984 that rented shop has been sold by Vijendra

Kumar. The defendant went in dilemma since landlord and owner

of the rented shop was partnership firm M/s.Vijendra and

Vijendra, and plaintiff claimed to have purchased the rented shop

from Vijendra Kumar, therefore, the defendant deposited arrears

of rent in the court under Section 19A of the Rent Act in the name

of part