BUDHMAL AND ANR Vs. RADHAKISHAN AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellant LRs. of Budhmal and Manak Chand have filed the present first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. on 25.8.1992 being aggrieved by the dismissal of their eviction suit by the learned Dist. Judge Churu vide judgment dtd.6.7.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.12/1982 Budhmal and Manak Chand, both sons of Suganchand V/s Radha Kishan S/O Pema Ram Bhat and Sanwar Mal S/O Hanuman Mal by caste Soni, who was represented by his LRs. at the time of rejection of the suit.

(2.) The eviction suit was filed in respect of suit shop situated at Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu on 6.5.1982 and the plaintiffs came with the case that about 13-14 years ago in the year 1968-69, the shop in question was let out to the defendant No.1 Radhakishan at the monthly rent of Rs.30/- and Ex.2 rent-note dtd.28.8.1969 and Ex.3 rent note dtd.22.8.1970 was executed by Radha Kishan in favour of the plaintiffs. With effect from 13.10.1972, the rent was increased to Rs.35/- per month on account of oral agreement between the parties. It was further averred in the plaint that the rent at the aforesaid rate was paid by the defendant No.1 Radha Kishan upto 28.3.1997 and thereafter neither any rent was paid to the plaintiffs nor the same nor the same was deposited in the Court.

(3.) The plaintiffs further averred that the defendant No.1 Radha kishan has sublet the said shop to the defendant No.2 Sanwar Mal S/o Sh. Hanumanmanl without consent of the landlord and said sublettee has further caused material alterations in the suit shop by breaking the window on the western side and converting it into a door and has also constructed a Pucci Bhatti for his business and has also opened ventilators on the western side which amounted to material alterations causing damage to the suit property. Initially the sublettee Sanwar Mal was not arrayed as defendant in the suit. However, upon the order passed by this Court in a Revision Petition No.398/1982 on 20.12.1982, the said defendant no.2 Sanwar Mal was impleaded as defendant and he filed amended written statement to the said eviction suit and contested the suit. The defendant No.1 Radha Kishan however filed a written statement agreeing with the averments made in the plaint that he was originally tenant of the landlord and he had sublet the said shop to the defendant no.2 Sanwar Mal.