VISHAN DAS Vs. NIJI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal.

(2.) ONE Onkar was the landlord and Vishandas was his tenant in respect of a shop situated at Udaipur on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. Onkar was murdered by none other than his son Bherulal. At the relevant time Bherulal was undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. Plaintiff Smt. Niji Bai was Bherulal's wife. It seems to have been disputed whether Smt. Niji Bai was Bherulal's wife by remarriage (Nata) or otherwise, but eventually it was accepted that Smt. Niji Bai was Bherulal's wife. Onkar was survived by three daughters besides his murderer son Bherulal. After Onkar's death and Bherulal's detention in jail the tenant started paying rent to Smt. Niji Bai. According to the tenant, Smt. Niji Bai refused accepting rent as she was motivated to enhance the rent. Consequently the tenant made an application on 17-8-65 (Ex. 1) before the Munsif Udaipur under sec. 19a of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". In that application the tenant named Smt. Niji Bai and the three daughters of Onkar as the opposite parties and admitted that a doubt had been created in his mind as to who was entitled to take the rent from him. The proceedings resulted in an order of the court (Ex. 2 on record) which is dated 8-1-66 According to it, on account of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties learned Munsif ordered that the deposited rent be paid to Smt. Niji Bai. Thereafter Smt. Niji Bai determined the tenancy of the defendant by a notice, Ex. 4 on record, and then on 16. 12. 67 commenced the action in the court of the Munsif, Udaipur for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant-tenant.

(3.) I may come back to the question whether Smt Niji Bai could have sued for the eviction of the tenant. There are three distinct circumstances which go to show that Smt Niji Bai was the landlord of the appellant at the relevant time and could not only recover the rent, but sue for eviction. The first is that ever since the death of Onkar in 1958 or 1959 it was Smt. Niji Bai to whom the tenant on his own showing bad been paying the rent. Then came the stage when the tenant felt constrained to make the application before the learned Munsif under sec. 19a of the Act (Ex1 on record ). In para 5 of that application it was stated by the tenant that after Onkar had been murdered by Bherulal Smt. Niji Bai, Bherulal's wife had been taking rent from him. In para 6 he made grievance of the fact that from 1-4-1965 Bherulal's wife had stopped taking rent from him and even the amount of rent sent by money order had been refused. In that way 5 months rent had fallen in arrears. In para 7 of the application he stated that deceased Onkar had three daughters who were named in the petition and they, according to the tenant, were the heirs of Onkar and a doubt had, therefore, arisen in the tenant's mind as to who would be entitled to take the rent from him. He, therefore, prayed that the rent be deposited and pud to the person entitled to receive the rent. This resulted in order Ex. 2 which I may read *** The above order shows that the parties were agreed that as rent was being taken by Smt. Niji Bai in the past she should be paid the rent lying in deposit. Therefore, there is reason to think that the doubt of defendant as to who was entitled to receive the rent from him was not removed. It will be a rare case when such a doubt would arise second time, because the requirement for invoking the procedure under sec. 19a of the Act is that there should be bona fide doubt in the mind of the tenant as to who was entitled to receive the rent from him, when there were more than one claimants demanding rent from him.