KISHORI RAMAN SHIKSHA SAMITI Vs. ASHOK CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ashwani Kumar Mishra alongwith Sri Anubhav Chandra for the respondent. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 9, Mathura in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2011 arising out of Original Suit No. 55 of 2006. Original Suit No. 55 of 2006 was instituted for possession after eviction of the defendants as also for arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation together with costs.

(2.) Plaintiff's case was that his father Sri Kundan Lal and another member of his family namely, Natthi, separately, by two registered lease deeds dated 10.9.1936 and 31.3.1941 had given on rent the land in dispute to the defendant No. 2 (Kishori Raman Inter College, Mathura) through its Manager Sri Dwarika Das. Under each agreement, the lessee was required to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per annum that is, Rs. 100 per annum for the entire demised premises under the two agreements. The rent was payable by the month of March of each year. In the agreements it was provided that if the lessee commits default in payment of rent for three consecutive years then the lessee would have right to evict the lessee. It was claimed that through succession, decree of the Court, and eventual family settlement between the plaintiff and his brother, the property in question came to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to pay rent with effect from 1.4.1995, accordingly, under the terms of the agreements the plaintiff was entitled to forfeit the lease and obtain possession of the demised premises. Consequently, the plaintiff served a registered notice dated 12.7.2005 whereby the tenancy was terminated by a six months notice, but since possession was not delivered, the suit was necessitated.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of one co-owner; that the defendants were not defaulter, as the lessors on account of their inter se dispute have not accepted the rent in spite of offer by the defendants; that there was no notice determining tenancy or for forfeiture of lease; and that they were entitled to protection against eviction under the provisions of section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.