MUSTAK MOHD Vs. HAIDAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff (hereafter referred to "plaintiffs") has filed this second appeal under Sec. 100 of C.P.C, assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2016 passed in civil first appeal No.03/2011 by Additional District and Session Judge Jhalawar, District Jhalawar affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 27/8/2008 passed in civil suit No.86/2002 (104/1996) by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Jhalawar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for rent and eviction in relation to the shop in question has been dismissed on merits, mainly on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(2.) On perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiffs' father and the defendant's father are real brothers and plaintiffs came with a case that the suit shop was belonging to their father-Karimbux who let out the shop in question to defendant at the rate of Rs.15.00 per month. The tenancy was alleged to be oral but no details, as to when the tenancy was commenced, were mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiffs have in vague manner pleaded that the defendant started to pay rent @ Rs.15.00 per month to plaintiffs and have committed default in payment of rent from 1/7/1985. The suit for eviction was instituted on 29/10/1996 invoking provisions of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1950 (hereafter referred to "Act of 1950"), on the ground of default, material alternation and denial of title.

(3.) The defendant submitted written statement and contended that the suit shop is more than 100 years old and their possession is not in the capacity of tenant. The defendant categorically denied that plaintiffs' father-Karimbux ever let out or gave possession of the shop to the defendant. The defendant categorically denied that he never paid any rent either @ Rs.15.00per month or at any other rate to plaintiffs and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, hence the suit for eviction is not liable to succeed and deserves to be dismissed.