YAKOOB ALI Vs. ARJUN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur dated February 25, 1991 by which he has dismissed the defendant-appellant's appeal against the judgment of the learned Munsif, Jhadol dated April 15,1988, decreeing the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) IN the year 1986, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant in respect of the suit shop situated in the village Jhadol (Udaipur), with the allegations, in short, that on July 3, 1985 the suit shop was let out to him on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- on the terms and conditions that it would be vacated on oral notice of one week, rent would be paid regularly and no construction would be raised therein and a rent note was executed embodying all these terms. He served a notice upon him on January 13, 1986 determining his tenancy with effect from February 2, 1986 or on the date on which he considered his monthly tenancy to expire. Despite notice, he did not tender the amount of rent and vacate the suit shop. The defendant admitted in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit shop as a tenant of the plaintiff on the monthly rent of Rs. 10/-, he duly executed the rent note and duly received the notice of ejectment. The remaining allegations of the plaint were denied. The trial court framed the following issues: ******** On April 6, 1987, the learned counsel for the parties stated before the trial court that they did not want to produce any evidence as all the issues framed are legal and accordingly the case was fixed for final arguments. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided all the issues against the defendant and decreed the suit as said above. The defendant preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated February 25, 1991.

(3.) IT was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the defendant-appellant is a very poor person and he should be given adequate time to search another shop for carrying on his business. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant deserves to get time upto December 31, 1991.