Rajasthan High Court
Mumtaj Ahmed S/O Habib Khan vs Firm Badrilal, Kedarlal ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023/RJJP/002108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 283/2019
Mumtaj Ahmed S/o Habib Khan, Aged About 57 Years, Resident
Of State Bank Of India, Branch Near Sawai Madhopur, Bajariya,
Sawai Madhopur
----Defendnt-Appellant
Versus
Firm Badrilal, Kedarlal Gangapurcity, Through Partner,
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Kedar Lal, Resident Of
Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur
2. Smt. Hemlata W/o Laxmichand, Resident Of Gangapurcity,
District Sawai Madhopur
3. Ashok Kumar Bansal S/o Late Kedar Lal, Resident Of
Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur
----Plaintiffs-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma for
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
08/02/2023
This civil second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful
appellant/defendant/tenant (for brevity, "defendant") against the
judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, "the
learned Appellate Court") whereby, the Appeal No.126/2012
(1291/2014) preferred against the judgment and decree dated
19.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing
the Suit No.09/1996 (17/92) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs
[2023/RJJP/002108] (2 of 4) [CSA-283/2019]
(for brevity, "plaintiffs") for eviction and arrears of rent, has been
dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit
for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant with the
averments that the suit shop situated in Sawaimadhopur was let
out by them to the defendant on 15.10.1988 @ Rs. 350/- per
month. Alleging that the defendant has committed default in
payment of rent for a period of six months, his eviction was
sought along with arrears of rent.
The defendant in his written statement denying the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, submitted
that he has taken the suit shop on rent from Shri Hari Ballabh @
Hari Prasad, who has executed an agreement to sell dated
23.12.1990 of the subject shop in his favour for a consideration of
Rs. 2,50,000/- receiving an advance amount of Rs. 38,000/- in
cash. It was averred that thereafter, he has not paid rent to Shri
Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed 6 Issues. After recording of the oral as well as
documentary evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court
decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 19.04.2012 which has
been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment
and decree dated 20.04.2019.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties as he has taken the
subject premises on rent from Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad,
who has subsequently executed an agreement to sell dated
[2023/RJJP/002108] (3 of 4) [CSA-283/2019]
23.12.1990 in his favour and thereafter, he occupied the same as
its owner. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be
allowed, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 be quashed
and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit
that since, there is a concurrent finding of fact with regard to
existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties, the civil second appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
From the findings of the learned Appellate Court as also the
learned trial Court on Issue No.5 pertaining to relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties, it is reflected that the
defendant as DW-1 has admitted execution of the rent deed (Ex.-
1) dated 15.10.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs and his defence
that he was made to sign this deed by Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari
Prasad on the pretext that he was mortgaging the subject shop to
third person has rightly not been countenanced by the learned
Courts on the premise that no oral evidence in contradiction to the
written deed is admissible. It has also come in evidence that the
defendant has claimed himself to be tenant in the subject
premises since the year, 1985; but, he failed to explain as to why
he executed a fresh rent deed dated 15.10.1988 for the same
shop. Contention of the defendant that at the time he signed the
rent deed dated 15.10.1988, it was blank, has not been accepted
by the learned Courts on the premise that no such averment was
made in the written statement. He has further admitted that the
suit filed by him against Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad for
specific performance of the agreement dated 23.12.1990, was
[2023/RJJP/002108] (4 of 4) [CSA-283/2019]
dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast
Track), Sawaimadhopur. The defendant has further admitted
during his cross-examination that he did not produce any evidence
to show that after execution of the rent deed dated 15.10.1988,
he ever paid rent to Shri Hari Ballabh @ Hari Prasad. In view of
the categorical admission by the defendant as to execution of the
rent deed dated 15.10.1988 by him which, indisputably, is in
favour of the plaintiffs, in the considered opinion of this Court,
learned Courts did not err in returning the findings on Issue No.5
in favour the plaintiffs.
Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact as to existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which has
not been shown to be perverse.
Accordingly, this civil second appeal is dismissed being
devoid of any substantial question of law.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/61
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
