SHRI KESHAV RAM Vs. DARAN TRUST (REGD.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the learned District Judge, Mahasu, disagreeing with the Rent Controller, Theog. The disputed building is said to be situated in three Khasra numbers: Nos. 57/1, 58 and 62 in Rampur Bazaar. The villagers of Daran had purchased the said property in the name of Shri Magni Ram of that village and he created a trust deed (Ex. PB) which was registered on 19-3-1964 declaring that the property had been purchased for the Daran Trust which included, among other things, the Property so purchased being used by the villagers from Daran going to Rampur for various purposes e. g. students studying at Rampur, persons having work in the Government offices and Courts at that place etc. The trustees of the said trust were to elect the President Secretary and Cashier. Shri Magni Ram had been appointed as the Chairman among the trustees. A resolution (Ex. PC) was also passed empowering Shri Sain Ram, the Secretary, to take proceedings to evict the tenant (the present petitioner), who had been a tenant of the property for about 17 or 18 years prior to the filing of the present petition for eviction, which was filed on 26-8-1964. The application for eviction was filed on two grounds :- (1) That even though the monthly rent was Rs. 10/-, the rent had not been paid from 1-7-1963 to 31-8-1964. (2) That the trust required the building for its own purposes. It was stated that the trust had no other property in Rampur to fulfil the objects of the said trust.

(2.) The application was resisted on the ground that the tenant had no personal knowledge of the creation of the trust. There were no arrears of rent as claimed because the rent was payable annually and not every month and the entire arrears of rent upto December, 1963 had been paid; the further rent became payable only in December, 1964. The said written statement was filed on 15-9-1964 on which date a sum of Rs. 85/- was tendered; 15-9-1964 was the first hearing after due service of the petition. The said amount was tendered under protest without admitting liability as asserted in the petition.

(3.) The Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction despite his finding that the petitioner had locus standi to bring the petition for eviction and had also held that the rent was payable only annually and not every month, consequently no question of arrears of rent arose and observed that the rent of Rs. 85/-, rendered by the tenant was accepted by the landlords, Basing himself on the statements made by R.W. 1 (Brij Bhushan Lai) and R. W. 2 (Rajendra Kumar), witnesses for the tenant, that half of the building was in the occupation of the trust and that one student from the village, Daran, was also living there, the Rent Controller persuaded himself to dismiss the application despite the want of such a plea in the written-statement (that the trust was in possession of one-half of the premises) and the same not even being put to the landlords' witnesses in cross - examination.