RAWAL CHAND Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE defendant-tenant has challenged the decree of eviction granted by the two courts below in respect of a shop situated at Opposite Bhattad Market, Station Road, Tehsil- Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents urged that lease was determined under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 by serving a notice dated 30.09.2004 (Exhibit-4) and Section 114 of the Act of 1882 is not attracted in the present case because there was no evidence on record to show the payment of arrear of rent of the shop to the plaintiffs. Therefore, relief against the forfeiture of rent as envisaged under Section 114 of the Act of 1882 cannot be given to the defendant-tenant. He also urged that lease is determined by the notice (Exhibit-4) dated 30.09.2004, which notice was admittedly received by the defendant as is evident from his own reply dated 21.10.2004 to the same vide Exhibit- 1/A, therefore, the capacity of the defendant-tenant becomes that of a trespasser and he is not entitled to retain the possession of the suit shop. He further submits that attornment of landlord is automatic and that apart the registered sale-deed was also produced before the trial court as Exhibit-1 and consequently, in the absence of denial of title by the defendant-tenant and valid notice having been served upon him vide Exhibit-4 dated 30.09.2004, the decree of eviction is perfectly justified and since the same is not under Rent Control Act, 1950, the grounds of default or need of the landlord, are not relevant in the present case. He further submitted that issues No.1 and 2 in this regard have rightly been determined by the courts below in favour of respondents-plaintiffs and no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the defendant.