Jai Prakash Bagra vs Saroj
2021 Latest Caselaw 6747 Raj

(1 of 3) [CSA-203/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 203/2019

1. Jai Prakash Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

2. Hansraj Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Saroj W/o Shri Rishabh Kumar Jain, S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Near Mahaveer Bhawan, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

2. Dr. Narendra Kala S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Near Mahaveer Bhawan, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

3. Ravi Kala S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Near Mahaveer Bhawan, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

4. Rajkumar Kala S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Near Mahaveer Bhawan, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

5. Smt. Heera Devi W/o Shri Gyan Chand, D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, R/o Neemuch (M.p.)

6. Smt. Teeja Devi W/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain, R/o Near Mahaveer Bhawan, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur. (Now Died)

7. Hariram Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

8. Rajaram Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur. (Since Deleted)

9. Ved Prakash Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

10. Bablu Bagra S/o Late Shri Jethmal Bagra, R/o Bagro Ka Bas, Deedwana Road, Kutchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shweta Purohit.

For Respondent(s)        :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
05/03/2021

This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against

judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 passed by Civil Judge,

(2 of 3) [CSA-203/2019]

Kuchaman City, District Nagaur and judgment and decree dated

31.05.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar,

Nagaur, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for eviction,

arrears of rent and mesne profit has been decreed and the appeal

preferred by the appellants has been dismissed, respectively.

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs inter-alia on the ground

that the suit shop was let-out by their predecessor - Nemi Chand

to father of the defendants, Jethmal Bagra on 01.05.1989 @

Rs.60/- per month.

It was claimed that on account of the requirement of one of

the plaintiffs Smt. Saroj, the tenancy was terminated by giving

notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

('the Act'), and as such, the plaintiffs were entitled for possession

of the suit property alongwith arrears of rent and mesne profit.

The averments made in the plaint were resisted.

The trial court framed five issues and after the evidence was

led by the plaintiffs, the defendants despite taking dates for two

years did not lead any evidence, came to the conclusion that the

tenancy was validly terminated by issuing notice under Section

106 of the Act and consequently decreed the suit.

Feeling aggrieved, two of the defendants filed first appeal.

The first appellate court after hearing the parties by its

impugned judgment and decree upheld the findings recorded by

the trial court and dismissed the first appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to make

submissions that the two courts below were not justified in

decreeing the suit / dismissing the appeal, inasmuch as, notice

given was not valid and that during course of the proceedings

(3 of 3) [CSA-203/2019]

when amendment was sought in the written statement, the same

was not permitted.

Further submissions were made that during pendency of the

present appeal, in the execution of the impugned decree,

possession of the suit property has already been taken from the

appellants.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellants and have perused the material available on

record.

Both the courts below have concurrently found that the

notice given under Section 106 of the Act was valid and that the

tenancy was validly terminated. The plea raised by the defendants

/ appellants, was not supported by any evidence as despite

sufficient opportunity the appellants did not lead any evidence,

therefore, was found to be without any basis.

Learned counsel for the appellants despite attempting to

make submissions, failed to point out any perversity in the

concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in relation to

the validity of the notice. Further, submissions made about

rejection of the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC also have

no substance.

In view thereof, the submissions made do not give rise to

any substantial question of law. No case for interference in the

judgment impugned is made out..

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 3-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)