Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Raj Boutique vs Smt. Anita Dalal (2025:Rj-Jd:45090) on 14 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:45090]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 481/2024
M/s Raj Boutique, Through Proprietor Smt. Vishnu Kunwar
Ranawat, W/o Shri Rajendra Singh Ranawat, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 302-A-Block, Anant Sneh Apartment, Bhuvana
Bypass, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Anita Dalal W/o Shri Rakesh Dalal, Aged About 56 Years, R/
o 397/9, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain
Mr. Swaroop Singh Sisodiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
14/10/2025
1. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the
judgment and decree dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned
District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No.81/2021 titled as
"Smt. Anita Dalal vs. Raj Boutique".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent- plaintiff
filed a civil suit for eviction of the appellant- defendant from the
shop no.2-B at Shobhagpura, Tehsil Badgaon in Udaipur. In the
plaint, it was stated that the premises in question is owned by
respondent- plaintiff. The appellant- defendant had taken the
premises in question on lease through a registered lease deed
dated 20.03.2018 for a period of five years commencing from
01.04.2018 at a monthly rent of Rs.32,500/- subject to an annual
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 05:05:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45090] (2 of 4) [CFA-481/2024]
increase of 5% after completion of first year. The appellant-
defendant had regularly paid the rent from April, 2018 to March,
2019 but thereafter, did not pay rent. The respondent- plaintiff
served a legal notice upon appellant- defendant for making
payment of due rent and vacating the premises in question.
However, the appellant- defendant neither paid the due rent nor
vacated the premises in question. Thereafter, the respondent-
plaintiff filed a suit for decree of eviction and mesne profits to the
tune of Rs.6,55,975/- from the appellant- defendant.
3. The appellant- defendant i.e. proprietor of the appellant firm
admitted the execution of the registered lease agreement for five
years between the parties and the terms regarding enhancement
of rent. However, it was contended that the lease deed did not
specify the mode of payment. As a matter of fact, the appellant-
defendant in order to avoid tax implications, received the monthly
rent in cash as well as through cheque, without issuing any rent
receipts. It was the case of the appellant- defendant that entire
rent amount has already been paid to the respondent- plaintiff,
though no receipts were issued. It was also stated that the
advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the appellant-
defendant also remains with the respondent- plaintiff. To support
the aforesaid contention, witnesses namely Smt. Jaishree
Chauhan and Shri Dinesh Chandra Jat were produced before the
trial Court who claimed that all cash payments of rent were made
in their presence. According to the appellant- defendant since she
continues to occupy the premises in question lawfully as tenant
and no rent is due, the respondent- plaintiff is not entitled to seek
eviction of appellant- defendant from suit premises.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 05:05:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45090] (3 of 4) [CFA-481/2024]
4. The trial Court has framed as many as five issues. The trial
Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidences
produced before it, decided all the issues in favour of the
respondent- plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant- defendant vehemently
submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated
12.08.2024 has been passed in utter disregard to the pleadings,
oral as well as documentary evidences. He submitted that while
deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent- plaintiff,
the learned trial Court overlooked the evidence of appellant-
defendant, Smt Jaishree Chauhan, Shri Dinesh Chandra Jat who
stated that all cash payments of rent were made to the
respondent- plaintiff in their presence. The fact with regard to
certain part of the rent being deposited in the bank of the
respondent- plaintiff was also not disputed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff
submitted that the finding with regard to monthly rent being not
paid is a finding of fact which has been held by the trial Court
against the appellant- defendant and no question of law worth
consideration of this Court, arises in the present appeal. He also
submitted that admittedly the premises in question was given on
lease through a registered lease deed dated 20.03.2018 for a
period of five years commencing from 01.04.2018 which has
already come to an end. The lease agreement has not been
extended and, therefore, the appellant- defendant is not entitled
to retain premises in question on rent.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 05:05:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45090] (4 of 4) [CFA-481/2024]
8. It is a settled law that once landlord proves tenancy and rent
due, the onus shifts on the tenant to prove the payment of the
rent through independent witnesses or circumstantial evidences.
Mere oral assertion of payment without documentary proof cannot
be accepted when the landlord denies it. The witnesses Smt.
Jaishree Chauhan and Shri Dinesh Chandra Jat produced before
the learned trial Court to establish the fact that the due rent
amount was paid in cash to the respondent- plaintiff were not
found to be independent and reliable as they could not satisfy as
to when and how much rent was paid in cash to the respondent-
plaintiff.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has
committed no illegality in deciding all the issues against appellant-
defendant after considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence available on record and therefore, the findings of fact
recorded by the trial Court are held to be correct. There is no
merit in the present first appeal, for which, it is dismissed.
10. Stay application stands dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
158-divya/-
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 05:05:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
