GORDHAN DAS MUCHCHHAL Vs. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Defendant -Petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Makrana has allowed an application moved by the Plaintiffs -Respondents under Order XIV Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure and has framed an additional issue on the question as to whether tenancy in question has been terminated by way of the notice served by the Plaintiff.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the property in relation whereof the suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking ejectment of the Defendant -Petitioner and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, is situated at Makrana whereto the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply; and the matter is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As per the observations in the impugned order, the Plaintiff has taken the averments in the plaint that the tenancy was terminated by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is not the case of the Petitioner -Defendant that he admits termination of tenancy by way of the said notice.

(3.) THE writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.