RAWAT HARDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. Some apartments in the fort of Kurabad belonging to the plaintiff were taken on rent for locating the office of the Ranger of the Forest Department of the State, on a rent of Rs. 15 per month. A document in this respect was executed on July 1, 1958, by Ratan Lal, Ranger, in favour of the plaintiff. Rent was paid up to 31st March, 1968. But thereafter, rent from 1st April, 1968 fell into arrears. According to the plaintiff, rent was payable month by month on the first day of the next succeeding month and as rent was not paid according to the terms of tenancy, a notice of three months' was given on December 2, 1967, terminating the tenancy on the expiry of the period of three months. The notice purported to terminate the tenancy and was also intended to fulfil the requirements of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the State Government did not make payment of arrears of rent from April 1, 1968, nor did it vacate the premises, a suit for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 120 as arrears of rent, at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, was filed by the plaintiff on December 10. 1968, in the court of Additional Munsiff, Udaipur.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the State, it was admitted that the premises in dispute were taken on monthly rent of Rs. 15/- for the use of the forest range office, but it was pleaded that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendant nor the tenancy was properly terminated by a notice for a period of three months. It was also stated that the defendant did not commit any default in payment of rent but the amount of arrears of rent was sent by money-order, which the plaintiff refused to accept.

(3.) The trial court held that the alleged contract executed by Ranger Ratan Lal in favour of the plaintiff was not valid because of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, as there was no contract in writing expressed in the name of the Governor of the State. It was also held that a proper notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not served upon the defendant tenant, as the cause of action did not arise prior to the termination of the tenancy. However, a decree for Rs. 120 towards arrears of rent was passed on the basis of the admission of the defendant contained in the written statement regarding the existence of the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, but the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in question was dismissed.