BADRILAL JAGANNATH Vs. DIGAMBAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the tenant-defendant in an ejectment suit which has been decreed by the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts. Besides repeating some of the arguments taken in defence in the lower Courts, the appellant has also raised two additional points which would be set out and examined presently.

(2.) IN the town of Sonkatch, there is a society called Digambar Jain Panchayat which controls and manages two Jain temples with nine houses attached to the temples for their maintenance. In fact, the society is competent to manage the temples and properties generally for the benefit of the Digambar Jain community at that place. Most of the houses are on rent and the income is applied for the maintenance of the temples and some attached Dharmashalas and schools. One of the houses had been rented to the joint family of which the defendant-appellant is the 'karta'. The plaintiff-panchayat found that the accommodation for school was insufficient and they were in need of a house for running a 'pathshala' for the religious instructions to young members of the Jain community there. Accordingly, they noticed the present appellant to quit and, when he failed to do so, brought the suit.

(3.) THE two grounds emphasized in the lower Courts are that the defendant was not the 'karta' of the joint family and the shop being run on the premises, was really the business owned by his brothers Premanarayan and Manoharlal. Evidence was led by both parties on this issue and the lower Courts have found as a fact that Badrilal was 'karta' of the joint family business run in the name of premanarayan Manoharlal. The licence taken out by Badrilal was found to be the final answer to this question. Any way, it is a finding of fact.