Shankar Singh Through Lrs vs Jagdish Prasad And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3503 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 103/2015

1.       Shankar Singh Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs-

1/1.     Smt. Dhapu Devi Wd/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through
         Jai Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/2.     Pukhraj S/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through Jai Bhawani
         Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer And R/o
         Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/3.     Rajkumar S/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through Jai
         Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/4.     Mohan S/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through Jai Bhawani
         Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer And R/o
         Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/5.     Ramesh Chand Died Through Legal Heirs, Partner Through Jai
         Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/5/1.   Smt. Sugna Devi W/o Late Ramesh Chand, Partner Through
         Jai Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/5/2.   Pinku Chauhan S/o Late Ramesh Chand Minor Through Mother
         Smt. Sugna Devi, Partner Through Jai Bhawani Welding Works,
         Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer And R/o Luhar Basti,
         Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/5/3.   Rinku Chauhan S/o Late Ramesh Chand Minor Through Mother
         Smt. Sugna Devi, Partner Through Jai Bhawani Welding Works,
         Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer And R/o Luhar Basti,
         Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/6.     Smt. Neelam Devi D/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through
         Jai Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

1/7.     Smt. Mamta D/o Late Shankar Singh, Partner Through Jai
         Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar Distt. Ajmer
         And R/o Luhar Basti, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer

                                                ----Appellants-Defendant No.2

                                    Versus

1.       Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Hariram, J.k. Call, Station Road,


                     (Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:50:31 PM)
                                               (2 of 4)                      [CSA-103/2015]


         Beawar Distt. Ajmer

2.       Shri Vishnu Prakash S/o Shri Hari Ram, J.k. Call, Station Road,
         Beawar Distt. Ajmer
                                                           ---Respondents/Plaintiffs

3. Shri Himmataram S/o Shri Rumaram, Birathia Through Partner Jai Bhawani Welding Works, Station Road, Beawar

----Respondents/Defendant No.1

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 04/05/2022

1. Appellants-tenants have filed this second appeal invoking

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC assailing the

judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed in Civil Appeal

No.18/2013 by Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District

Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree for eviction dated

26.02.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.110/1993 (52/88) by Civil

Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer.

2. The rented premise is a shop for which the tenancy was

created on 14.06.1987 @ Rs.375/- per month.

3. Later on respondent-landlord by way of notice dated

15.05.1988 terminated the tenancy and instituted the eviction suit

invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property

Act.

4. During course of trial, the provisional rent was determined.

Appellants-tenants remained fail to deposit the provisional rent,

hence their defence was struck down vide order dated

17.11.2011.

5. The trial court, after recording evidence of parties, found

that the legal notice dated 15.05.1988 issued by respondent-

(3 of 4) [CSA-103/2015]

landlord was served upon tenants through registered post, hence

the tenancy stands terminated. Accordingly, the decree for

eviction and arrears of rent was passed vide judgment and decree

dated 26.02.2013.

6. The judgment and decree for eviction and arrears of rent

was assailed by way of first appeal. Before the first appellate

court, one of the tenants namely Sh.Himmataram has entered into

compromise with respondents, however, the legal heirs of another

co-tenant pursued the first appeal on merits.

7. The first appellate court re-heard the matter on all the issues

and affirmed the fact findings of the trial court and finally

dismissed the first appeal vide judgment dated 31.10.2014

affirming the decree for eviction.

8. Hence, against the concurrent findings of fact, this second

appeal has been filed.

9. At the outset, this Court is of opinion that two courts below

have observed that the tenancy of the appellants was terminated

by way of issuing a valid and lawful notice dated 15.05.1988,

which has been sent through registered post. There is no dispute

about the fact that the notice has been served upon appellants-

tenants. The defence of appellants-tenants is only to the effect

that later on during course of trial of the suit it transpired that the

landlord is not the real owner but one another person namely Mr.

Watson Wells is the real owner of the rented premise.

10. In rebuttal, the said plea, respondent-landlord has placed on

record a compromise with Mr. Watson Wells to show that he is not

concerned with the rented shop and the respondent-plaintiff is the

real owner as well as landlord. Otherwise, appellants-tenants were

paying rent to respondent-landlord, hence they are stopped to

(4 of 4) [CSA-103/2015]

assail the relationship status of the respondent as landlord by

virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

11. Be that as it may, in the aforesaid factual matrix, in view of

concurrent findings of fact and considering the scope of the

present litigation, there is no substantial question of law has

involved in this second appeal. More particularly, when one of the

co-tenants had already entered into compromise at the first

appellate stage. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the impugned judgment and decree on merits.

12. At this juncture, on instruction of appellants, the counsel

submits that at least some reasonable time may be granted to the

appellant, to vacate the rented shop and hand over the vacant

possession to the respondent-landlord.

13. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and considering

the aforesaid aspects, this Court deems it just and proper to grant

three months time to appellants-defendants to vacate and hand

over the vacant possession of the rented shop to the respondent-

landlord, if has not already been handed over, however, the grant

of time would be subject to payment of arrears of rent and future

rent as mesne profits.

14. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned judgment and

decree for eviction is maintained and the second appeal stands

disposed of.

15. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s),

if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

16. Record of both courts below be sent back.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN/73

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)