BHURE KHAN Vs. SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree of eviction has been passed against the defendants/appellants herein after the trial court as also the first appellate court recorded a finding against them that they are guilty of default in payment of rent for more than 6 months due to which their defence was struck off by the trial court. The suit was consequently decreed, which was upheld by the first appellate court. This second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two courts below.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants sought to raise a substantial question of law in this appeal by contending that although the defence of the defendant-appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent was struck off by the trial court, they could not have been precluded from examining the witnesses and contesting the other ground of eviction which was of non-user. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench Ramesh Chand Pandey & Anr. vs. Babulal & Others (1), wherein a question was referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was) to determine whether the striking off the defence of a tenant on one of the grounds against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction taken by the plaintiff-landlord or such striking off would be limited to the defence against eviction on one of the grounds only specified in Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter shortly referred to as `the Rajasthan Act ). The reference was answered by the Division Bench vide judgment referred to hereinbefore by holding that the order passed u/sec. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Act striking out the defence of the tenant against eviction would certainly apply to the grounds of eviction specified in Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act.