COMMITTEE JAMA MASZID AND MADARSA KADIMI Vs. PURNMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.(17/02) (56/99) 71/2003, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.44/96.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent-defendant seeking his eviction from the suit shop on the ground that the defendant had committed default in making payment of rent and that the plaintiff required suit shop bonafidely for keeping certain articles of the plaintiff. It was alleged interalia that the Jama Maszid and Madarsa Kadimi, were being run by the appellant-plaintiff-committee, and that the suit shop belonging to the plaintiff was given on rent to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs.75. It was also alleged that the defendant had committed default in making payment of rent since 01.01.1993 and that the suit shop was also required by the committee for keeping the articles like dari, tanki, chandni, etc., used in the functions being held in the Maszid and the Madarsa. The appellant-plaintiff, therefore, had terminated the tenancy by giving notice to the respondent-defendant on 30.06.1996, and had filed the suit seeking possession of the suit shop. The suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant by filing the written statements, contending interalia that the suit shop was originally given to him on rent by one Aladdin Leelgar, and subsequently the said suit shop was given by the said landlord to the appellant-committee. Though the respondent-defendant had admitted that he had not paid the rent since December 1993, he had denied that the suit shop was required by the appellant bonafidely for keeping the articles as alleged in the plaint.

(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, against which the appeal was preferred by the appellant, however the same also came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.