MOOLCHAND Vs. ISHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal before me which is by a tenant and arises out of a suit for eviction raises a question about the applicability of clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of see. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the "act", that is, the non-availability of protection under the section on the tenant's renouncing his character as a tenant or by denying the title of the landlord.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit was a shop situated at Karauli. THE plaintiffs Isharwarlal and Bajranglal who were brothers, had purchased this shop from one Rama Kishan Babulal by a registered sale deed dated 16. 10. 68. THE defendants Moolchand and his son Radhey Shyam were said to be the tenants of the transferor Ramakishan Babulal on a monthly rent of Rs. 1. 25 paise. THE transferor gave notice of the sale of the property to the defendant-tenants intimating that the shop had been sold to the plaintiffs Ishwarlal and Bajranglal and thereafter the tenants should pay rent to them. THEn the plaintiffs served a notice on 13-9-68 on the defendants terminating the tenancy in accordance with see. 106 Transfer of Property Act and then filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 23-12-68. THE eviction of the defendants was sought on two grounds namely, default in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity of the landlords. On 20-3-62, however, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application seeking permission of the court for taking an additional ground for ejectment namely, that the defendants having repudiated the title of their landlords by their notice Ex. 4 dated 30-10 68 served through Shri Basant Kishore Bhargava, Advocate, they were liable to be evicted.

(3.) IN this context the question arises, as already observed, whether the defendant cannot be disentitled from the protection of sec. 13 of the Act as long as a notice of forfeiture under clause (g) of sec. 111 of the Transfer of Property Act is not given by the landlord and the determination of the lease by a notice under sec. 106 Transfer of Property Act would not be enough. No direct authority which may help in solving this problem could be brought to my notice. The question has, therefore, to be decided in the light of the statutory provisions and the general principles.