Gopal vs M B Lalsot Through Executive ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5710 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:27680]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 342/2016

Gopal son of Shri Ramphool, R/o Village Khatwa Road, Lalsot,
District Dausa (Rajasthan)
                                                        ----Appellant/Defendant
                                      Versus
Municipal Board Lalsot through its Executive Officer, Municipal
Board Lalsot, District Dausa.
                                                        ----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma
For Respondent(s)           :



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                           Judgment / Order

07/10/2023

This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred

by 83 days, is accompanied with an application (1858/2016)

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of

delay.

Although, the reasons stated in the application seeking

condonation of delay are not satisfactory; however, in the interest

of justice, the application is allowed and delay in preferring the

appeal is condoned.

This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment

and decree dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the

learned appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.18/2014

whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment dated

29.05.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)

[2023:RJ-JP:27680] (2 of 4) [CSA-342/2016]

No.2, Lalsot, District Dausa (for short "the learned trial Court")

decreeing the Civil Suit No.65/2011, B.T. No.10/2013 filed by the

respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") for

recovery of rent and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the

appellant/defendant (for brevity "the defendant"), has been

affirmed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

recovery of rent against the defendant stating therein that a shop

belonging to it was let out to the defendant on 12.01.2011 on rent

@ ₹2,200/- per month. Alleging that the defendant has not paid

the rent for a period of seven months till 01.08.2011, the decree

as aforesaid was prayed for.

The defendant in his written statement and counter-claim,

admitting that he is tenant in the subject shop on rent @ ₹2,200/-

per month, submitted that he has incurred an expense of

₹40,878/- towards repairing of the shop which was liable to be

adjusted against the rent as orally assured by the then Chairman

of the plaintiff-Board. It was averred that after deduction of the

due rent, he was entitled to a sum of ₹24,600/- from the plaintiff-

Board.

The plaintiff in his written statement to the counter-claim

submitted that under the terms of the agreement, repairing and

maintenance of the rented shop is responsibility of the defendant.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial

Court framed three issues including relief. After recording evidence

of the respective parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit

and dismissed the counter-claim vide judgment dated 29.05.2014.

The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendant has

[2023:RJ-JP:27680] (3 of 4) [CSA-342/2016]

been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and

decree dated 05.03.2016.

Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned

counsel for the defendant submits that findings of the learned

Courts are against the evidence on record. He submitted that the

learned Courts erred in failing to appreciate that the suit shop was

not in proper shape and required repairing before it could be put

to use. He submitted that in these circumstance, it was incumbent

upon the learned Courts to have allowed his counter-claim and

dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. He, therefore, prays that

the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated

05.03.2016 be quashed and set aside, the suit be dismissed and

the counter-claim be decreed.

Heard. Considered.

While dismissing the suit, the learned trial Court has held

that under the rent agreement, the defendant has agreed to get

the shop repaired at his own expenses. It was noted that vide

letter (Exhibit A-16) issued by the plaintiff extending permission to

the defendant to get the shop repaired, it was specifically

stipulated therein that it would be done so by at his own

expenses. The learned trial Court further observed that the

defendant miserably failed to establish that he carried out

repairing work in the suit shop on the assurance extended by the

then Chairman of the plaintiff-Board to adjust the expenses

against the rent. These findings have been affirmed by the learned

appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. This Court

has also examined the judgments under challenge and finds that it

was admitted position that the defendant has not paid the arrears

[2023:RJ-JP:27680] (4 of 4) [CSA-342/2016]

of rent as claimed by the plaintiff on the premise that he was

entitled for adjustment of the maintenance expenses which he

could not establish.

In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

learned Courts did not err in decreeing the suit and dismissing the

counter-claim filed by the defendant.

Since, this civil second appeal is deovid of any substantial

question of law, the same is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/110

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)