RAEES AHMED Vs. SHRIGOPAL PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (defendant) has challenged the judgment & decree dated 21. 8. 99 of the ADJ No. 2, Ajmer who allowed respondent's civil appeal No. 1/98 by setting aside trial Court's judgment dated 15. 1. 96 in civil suit No. 8/91, and accordingly granted decree of eviction against the tenant (appellant ).

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (respondents-landlords) instituted a civil suit seeking decree of arrears of rent due from 1. 1. 1990 @ Rs. 50/- per month and for eviction of the defendant (appellant) from the suit shop described in the plaint on the grounds inter alia of- (1) default in making payment of regular & monthly rent @ Rs. 50/- from 1. 1. 1990, (2) denial of title of landlords (plaintiffs) as to the suit shop; and (3) bonafide and reasonable need of the plaintiffs.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions, I may hasten to point out that questions proposed in memo of this appeal describing them as substantial are not formulated properly and they are mere repetition to each other. It is not in dispute that the fate of this litigation hinges on issue No. 1 framed & decided by the trial Court as to relationship of tenancy between the plaintiffs & defendant (appellant) so also as to the denial of title and ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit shop/rented premises. Hence I albeit reframe following questions for consideration while hearing and deciding this appeal but at this juncture I restrain from saying as to whether they are substantial questions of law or are involved for admitting this second appeal for hearing within the purview of Sec. 100, CPC- 1. Whether advocate/pleader in the suit itself can appear as a witness without retiring from a case and whose such evidence can be read as admissible in the facts and circumstances for the present case, especially as a power of attorney holder and as an attesting witness to material documentary evidence, i. e. sale deed? 2. Whether in a eviction suit contested on denial of not only title by the defendant but also denial of relationship as landlord and tenant in between plaintiffs and defendant, a decree of eviction can be passed especially in the absence of plaintiffs or their predecessors in-title, having failed to appear as witness to support their case? 3. Whether in an eviction suit by a co-owner, ground of default can be proved by other witness then landlord or his predecessors in title who failed to appear as witness to prove default? 4. Whether principle of Order 8 Rule 4 CPC is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case?