MANCHA RAM S/O TARAJI Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant, Mancha Ram S/o Taraji, has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and eviction decree dated 14.02.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.67/2011- Dinesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Mancha Ram in respect of suit shop, situated in Sheoganj, where the Rent Control Law does not apply.

(2.) THE respondents-plaintiffs, gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining and terminating the lease in respect of suit shop in question, which the plaintiffs, Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Nirmala, had purchased from Kishore Kumar S/o Gyan Chand Gandhi on 01.05.2002 under a registered sale-deed Ex.1 on record. The plaintiffs came the case that after purchase of the said property, including the residential house, which was possessed by the plaintiffs themselves and the shop was in the lease in favour of defendant- Mancha Ram by the predecessor in interest, they needed the suit shop for his own purpose and, therefore, the lease was determined. The notice Ex.2 dated 27.10.2009 was given to the defendant, Mancha Ram by the advocate of the plaintiff Mancha Ram, Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia, which was duly replied by the advocate of the defendant, Mr. Nagendra Kumar Mertia vide Ex.4 dated 09.11.2009. The reply Ex.4 dated 09.11.2009 sent by the defendant was responded back by the plaintiff through his advocate Mr. Ashwin Kumar Mardia vide Ex.5 dated 30.11.2009.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the plaintiffs purchased the suit property including the shop in question under a registered sale-deed Ex.1 dated 01.05.2002. The said sale-deed has never been questioned and could not have been questioned by the defendant-lessee. There is presumption attached to the registered sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs. The mere fact that the defendant was paying rent after the said sale itself since 2003 to till 2009 under Ex.6 to Ex.13 to the plaintiff, Dinesh Kumar, is sufficient to prove his own admission that he accepted the attornment of the suit property in favour of present plaintiffs. Suddenly sending a cheque of Rs.4,025/- in the year 2009 to the predecessor-in-title, Gyan Chand, which cheque was, however, returned back by the predecessor in interest under letter Ex.16 dated 18.11.2009 cannot enure to the benefit of the defendant- Mancha Ram, nor the contention that such payment of rent to Dinesh Kumar was for and on behalf of Gyan Chand is of any worth. The PW.2 Gyan Chand has clearly stated in his cross- examination that the suit property in question was belonging to their joint family and the suit property was never his individual or self- acquired property, which upon partition which took place in the year 1978, the said property fell in the share of Kishore Kumar S/o Gyan Chand and after such partition only, the said premises was sold by his son Kishore Kumar to the present plaintiffs-respondents, Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Nirmala. The said PW.2 Gyan Chand has also averred that he was present at the time of execution of said sale- deed and registration thereof on 01.05.2002.