GAJANAND Vs. SHAMBHU P JAISINGHANIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been filed by appellant-defendant No.7 Gajanand being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur in Civil Appeal Decree No.07/2006, whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No.7 and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), City North, Udaipur in Civil Suit No.301/1998, whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the father of the defendant No.1 to 6, namely, Mohan Lal, took the premises on rent as mentioned in the suit and the rent was fixed as Rs.50 per month about 35 years ago. Since then they have been living there. It is stated in the plaint that the property in question belongs to Smt. Puri Bai who purchased the same from Bhopal Co-operative Society Limited, Pratap Nagar on instalments. Smt. Puri Bai gave the property in question to the respondent No.1-plaintiff by a will and after her death, to get the probate an application was moved before the High Court of Delhi in the year 1988 and in the year 1988 probate was issued. It is also stated that after the death of Mohan Lal about 7-8 years back, no rent was paid. When the plaintiff demanded the rent, only assurances were given, but no rent was paid and further the legal heirs of Mohan Lal left the property in question and sublet the same to appellant-defendant No.7 Gajanand without the consent of the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants have not paid rent for 8 years and they have sublet the property in question without the permission of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and for recovery of rent of 36 months at the rate of Rs.50 per month.

(3.) The defendant No.1 to 6 did not put their appearance despite service, therefore, ex parte proceedings were conducted against them. Appellant-defendant No.7 filed written statement and stated that he has not taken the premises on rent from Mohan Lal. Further it is stated that neither he is sub-tenant nor he is prying the rent of Rs.150 per month as sub-tenant. It is also stated that the plaintiff has no right to get the premises vacated as no cause of action has arisen.