UDAI CHAND Vs. SHANK AR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff landlord had purchased a shop by a sale deed dated 17th May 1965, and then terminated the tenancy of the defendant petitioner by a registered notice in July, 1965, coupled with a demand for arrears of rent. Upon the failure of defendant to comply with the notice to quit a suit was filed against the defendant petitioner on 23rd November, 1965. During the pendency of that suit the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was made applicable by a notification dated 30th March, 1967, to Rajgarh town where the shop is situated.

(2.) The defendant-petitioner had denied having executed any rent note in favour of Bhurdas, the predecessor-in interest of the plaintiff landlord who had also notified the defendant petitioner of the sale in favour of the plaintiff by a registered notice dated 25th June, 1965, received by the defendant petitioner on 29th June, 1965. The defendant petitioner pleaded having taken the shop from another individual, Mahant Ram Ratan Das.

(3.) In the course of litigation, the defendant-petitioner had asked for an issue to be framed on the question whether there was legal necessity for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. In other words, he had questioned, at that stage, the legality of transfer in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of want of title in the plaintiff"s predecessor-in-interest and also on the ground that the sale deed was invalid. The High Court had, however, on a revision application preferred by the defendant petitioner, rejected the demand of the tenant for framing of an issue on the question whether there was legal necessity for the transaction. The ground for this rejection was that, as the defendant petitioner had obtained possession under a tenancy from Bhurdas, the predecessor-in-interest of the present landlord, Surajmal, the defendant-petitioner, Udai Chand was estopped from questioning the title of his landlord by reason of the principle laid down in Section 116 of the Evidence Act.