MOHANLAL Vs. JAIPUR HOSIERY MILLS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal before me raises the question whether on the death of a tenant whose contractual tenancy had already been terminated during the pendency of a suit for eviction filed by the landlord, the landlord can get a decree for the eviction against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant in the same suit or he will be required to file a separate suit.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the disposal of the question may be recounted: The subject matter of the suit was a shop situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. It originally belonged to one Mukhia Jainarain and on his death it devolved on his heirs. Defendant Sarwanlal, since deceased, was a tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 62/ -. After Jainarain's death Sarwanlal continued to pay the rent to his heirs. Sarwanlal's heirs, however, sold the shop to the plaintiff-respondent, the Jaipur Hosiery Mills Private Limited, by a registered sale deed dated 24-12-66. The right to recover the rent in arrears from the tenant was also assigned. The plaintiff-respondent served a notice on 31-3-67 to Sarwanlal by registered post terminating his tenancy. This notice was delivered to Sarwanlal on 1-4-67. Sarwanlal was called upon to vacate the suit shop two months after the service of the notice or on such day from which he considered his monthly tenancy to expire. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against Sarwanlal on 6-7-67. The eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord and also on the ground of default in the payment of rent.

(3.) TO meet the contention a two-fold argument was made on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. In the first place, it is submitted that there was overwhelming evidence for showing that the plaintiff had a reasonable and bona fide necessity for the suit shop. The other alternative argument was that as Sarwanlal was only a statutory tenant, on his death the protection against eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act", was not available to legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Reliance was placed on J. C. Chatterjee vs. S. K. Tandon (l ). The learned Addl. District Judge accepted the argument made on behalf of the plaintiff that according to J G. Chatterjee's case (l) the protection against eviction under the Act was not available to the legal representatives of the deceased tenant whose tenancy had been terminated. Consequently according to the learned judge it was not necessary to consider the question whether the landlord had established his bona fide personal necessity for the suit shop. The learned Addl. District Judge further negatived the plea sought to be raised by the legal representatives that the suit shop had been taken by Sarwanlal in a representative capacity and,therefore,the legal representatives were themselves tenants on the property. Learned Additional District Judge observed that a legal representative impleaded under Order 22, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was only entitled to take any defence appropriate to his character as a legal representative of the deceased tenant and as Sarwanlal had admitted himself to be the tenant and had not pleaded that it was the joint family who were the tenants it was no longer open to the legal representatives to raise this question but they had to start from the stage the suit was when Sarwanlal died. Apart from this the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Sarwanlal was a tenant in his individual capacity. The question whether the tenancy has been properly terminated was also argued by the legal representatives of Sarwanlal. It was submitted that the notice was not delivered to Sarwanlal, but to his son Mohanlal. The learned Judge considered the evidence of P. W. 1 Jamnadas and that of the Postman Mohmmed Rafique (P. W. 6) and reached the conclusion that the notice was delivered by the postman to Mohanlal I/o Sarwanlal at the instance of Sarwanlal. The learned Judge also noted the circumstance that D. W. 1 Sarwanlal did not deny the receipt of notice but simply stated that he had no knowledge of its service. The validity of the notice was assailed also on the ground that according to the agreement between the parties a 6 months' notice was required to be given by the landlord for determining the tenancy. The burden to prove this was on the defendant and as there was no reliable evidence on record that there was any agreement between the parties to that effect the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the notice cannot be held to be invalid for that reason. In the result, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal.