HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 331/2018

Shri Ram Singh S/o Shri Madhav Singh, R/o 9/20, New No. 7/13,

Gautam Aashram Road, In Front Of Satya Narayan Temple,

Chhoti Basti, Pushkar, District Ajmer Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Shri Lal Chand Sadhnani S/o Late Shri Ram Chand R/o Mishron

Ka Mohalla, Chhoti Basti, Pushkar, District Ajmer Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Sangeeta Kumari Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

Reserved on

March 9^th ,2022

Pronounced on

March15^th,2022

1.

Appellant-Defendant (hereinafter defendant) has assailed the

judgment and decree for ejectment with arrears of rent and the

mesne profits dated 03.06.2016 passed by the court of Civil

Judge, Pushkar, Ajmer in civil suit No. 5/2006 instituted by the

respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff) under Order 7 Rule 1

CPC read with Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act. The

judgment and decree dated 03.06.2016 has been affirmed in the

first appeal No. 48/2017 by the first appellate court, Judge Labour

Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, vide judgment dated

11.05.2018. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two

courts below are under challenge in the present second appeal.

(2 of 15)

[CSA-331/2018]

2.

The appellant is defendant and respondent is plaintiff and

hereinafter, the parties shall be referred with the same

nomenclature as were called before the trial court.

3.

The suit property is residential portion comprising of two

rooms, kitchen situated at house No. 9/20 (New No. 7/13)

Gautam Ashram Road, Choti Basti, Pushakar. The plaintiff alleged

the defendant to be his tenant in the suit property at the rate of

Rs. 400/- per month rent and tenancy was said to be oral, on the

contrary, defendant denied his tenancy and alleged himself to be

the owner. The trial court as well as, the first appellate court after

appreciation of evidence on record, concluded that defendant does

have possession over suit property as tenant and not as owner

and further the plaintiff has terminated his tenancy vide legal

notice dated 19.11.2005, as such both courts concurrently have

passed decree for eviction against defendant, along with arrears of

rent and mesne profits.

4.

The plaintiff instituted a civil suit for ejectment on

03.01.2006 claiming inter alia that plaintiff purchased the house in

question including the suit premises through registered sale deed

dated 30.01.2002 from the erstwhile owner and landlord one Shri.

Purshotam Das. It was averred that defendant was tenant in two

rooms and kitchen the same house at ground floor and seller had

instructed to defendant to pay rent from 30.01.2002 onwards to

plaintiff purchaser. It was averred that after such instruction by

the erstwhile owner/landlord, the plaintiff asked to the defendant

to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month, else

defendant may vacate rented portion. However, defendant

accepted to pay rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month and paid

rent from 01.02.2002 to 31.07.2002, but did not pay rent

(3 of 15)

[CSA-331/2018]

thereafter w.e.f. 01.08.2002 onwards. It was averred that

defendant started vandalizing the rented premises and raised new

construction without permission of the plaintiff and cause

substantial damage as well as material alteration to the rented

property. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 14.10.2005

upon defendant to which defendant replied vide notice dated

09.11.2005, denying the plaintiff as owner/landlord as well as

asserted his possession as owner over the suit property. The

plaintiff served another legal notice dated 19.11.2005 under

section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the

tenancy of defendant and thereafter filed present civil