RATNI DEVI & ORS. Vs. GORURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Civil Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1996 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Regular Appeal No.8/1995 whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1995 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navalgarh in Civil Suit No.123/1983 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

(3.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-landlord Shri Laduram and Shri Nand Kishore filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-tenant Shri Goruram on the ground of default in payment of rent with the averment that the suit shop was let out to the respondent on 6.9.1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 45.00 and he has not paid the rent for the period from 1.8.1982 to 30.9.1983 i.e. for a period for more than six months. It was prayed that a decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent may be passed against the respondent. In the written statement filed by the respondent apart from other facts, it was averred that the suit shop vests in Thakur Ji Shri Laxmi Nath Ji and the appellant Shri Laduram is only a Pujari of that temple. It was also averred that Shri Laduram receives and collects rent from him as Pujari of the temple and he did not execute any rent note on 6.9.1980. It was also stated that as the suit shop vests in Thakur Ji Shri Laxmi Nath Ji and the temple is the owner of the suit shop, it is necessary party in the suit and without it the suit is not maintainable. The appellants filed an application for amendment in the plaint on the ground that the respondent has denied their title and that application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 13.9.1985 and in compliance of that order amended plaint was filed on 25.9.1985 incorporating a new para No.5-A to the effect that in the written statement filed by the respondent he has denied the title of the appellants and on that ground also he is liable to be evicted from the suit shop. Thereafter, the respondent filed an amended written statement incorporating therein not only reply to the new para No.5-A added in the amended plaint, but also many other facts were also incorporated without seeking amendment in the written statement. The appellants objected to the filing of such amended written statement and that objection was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.8.1988 and it was ordered that limiting and confining to the extent of newly added para No.5-A of the plaint, the respondent may file an amended written statement, but in compliance of that order no further written statement was filed by the respondent. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues on 24.3.1987 :