MOHD. ISMAIL & ANR. Vs. IMAMUDDIN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 17.3.2001 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners which was filed against the order of learned trial court which had determined interim rent as per provisions of Sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

(2.) The case has a long history. Mohd. Ismail, Kamruddin and Imamuddin are three brothers. Smt. Zenab is the wife of Imamuddin. The suit property which are some shops were in the tenancy of Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin. They had taken the shops on rent from Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Kumari. Imamuddin carried on business of tailoring and was also dealing with sale and purchase of properties. Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Kumari wanted to sell their three shops, therefore, Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin had a talk with him. Then they informed their brother and his wife who are respondents in this revision petition. Imamuddin told that to deal with the sale and purchase of a property was a risky job, therefore, he will purchase the properties for them. Then a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 was given to the respondents on 1.1.94 and Rs. 69,000.00 on 4.5.94. Respondents executed a document on 4.5.94 and assured that when the transaction would be completed, registered sale letter would be executed. Then both the parties executed an agreement on 22.8.95 wherein respondents agreed to execute the sale deed and also agreed that the upper portion as well as stair case would be used by respondents and in lieu thereof plot No. D-32 measuring 100 square yards would be given. Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab got the registered sale deed in their favour but did not execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Instead Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab filed a suit for eviction against the petitioners on the ground of personal and bonafide need and default in payment of rent alleging that they ere earlier tenants of Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita on a monthly rent of Rs. 500.00 but ever since the property was purchased from Bhanu Prakash on 16.5.94 they became the landlords and there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between them. In the written statement, it was admitted that the property belonged to Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Singh and the same was taken on rent but the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in this case was denied. It was specifically stated in the written statement that there was a talk of the sale of the property with Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Singh which was to be purchased through the plaintiff and an amount of Rs. 1,29,000.00 was paid and agreement was executed. It was specifically pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the plaintiffs got the sale deed executed in their favour on the basis of fraud while the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the defendants. It was also stated that a suit for specific performance was pending before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled for the rent and eviction.

(3.) But the learned trial court by order dated 11.8.99 came to the conclusion that prima facie there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, hence, determined the rent. On appeal, the order was confirmed.