BANSHILAL Vs. SANJAY PEDIWAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant has laid this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') against the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, whereby it has affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that in January 2003, first respondent instituted a suit for eviction against his tenant Omprakash (respondent No.6) from shop No.100 measuring 9.3 x 7.9 sq.ft. situated at Old Dhanmandi, Sri Ganganagar. In the suit for eviction, appellant was also arrayed as defendant as sub-tenant in the premises. The suit for eviction filed by the first respondent landlord was based precisely on three grounds, which are default in payment of rent, sub-letting and reasonable and bonafide necessity of the premises for business of his wife. The learned trial Court issued summons to 6 th respondent as well as appellant but none appeared on behalf of 6 th respondent and therefore Court proceeded exparte. However, appellant joined the issue with the first respondent and contested the suit. The learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the suit and during pendency of the trial shop in question was sold by the landlord to respondent No.2 to 5 and therefore at their behest an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was laid for impleading them as plaintiffs and deleting the name of original plaintiff. Although in the application, prayer was made for deleting the name of original plaintiff but the learned trial Court without acceding to that prayer of respondents No.2 to 5 permitted them to be impleaded as plaintiffs. The learned trial Court framed six issues for determination and on behalf of respondent-plaintiffs PW1 Sanjay Pediwal and PW2 Ravikant appeared in the witness box and testified on oath. Besides that 10 documents were also produced on their behalf which were exhibited.

(3.) The appellant himself appeared in the witness box as DW1. In view of subsequent developments and sale of the suit property, the respondent-plaintiffs abandoned the plea of eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity and that being so the learned trial Court decided Issue No.4 to 6 as not pressed. While adverting to Issue No.1 to 3, the learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence has found that the respondent tenant is defaulter in payment of rent. While deciding issue No.2, the learned trial Court has found that monthly rent of the premises was Rs.1,000 and the respondentplaintiffs are entitled to receive rent at the rate of Rs.1000 per month. The crucial issue, i.e. issue No.3, relating to subletting of the premises was examined threadbare by the learned trial Court and eventually it is found that the 6 th respondent tenant has subletted the rented premises to the appellant and as such the respondent-plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction.