MANOHAR LAL JEENGAR Vs. MANJU & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant, challenging the judgment & decree dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bewar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.133/2012 (12/08), whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit shop.

(2.) In the instant case, the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3-original plaintiffs had filed the suit against the present appellant and the respondent Nos.4 to 8-original defendants, seeking possession of the suit shop from the appellant-defendant No.1 alleging interalia that late Shri Umrao Singh Karnawat, who happened to be the father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 Smt. Manju had let out the suit shop to the appellant-defendant No.1. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Shri Umrao Singh, a family settlement had taken place between the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant Nos.2 to 6, who were the sons and the daughter of late Shri Umrao Singh, and as per the said family settlement, the suit shop had fallen into the share of the plaintiff No.1. As per the further case of the plaintiffs, the appellant-defendant had not paid the rent of the suit shop since 1998, and therefore a notice was served upon him on 03.02.2007 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Though the said notice was received by the appellant-defendant, the same was not replied to, nor the arrears of rent was paid to the plaintiffs, and hence the suit was filed.

(3.) The said suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant No.1, denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the plaintiff No.1 had only 1/6th share in the suit shop and that she was not the sole owner of the suit shop. It was further contended that the notice given by the plaintiffs was not legal or valid, and there was no valid termination of tenancy. The appellant-defendant had also contended that he had paid rent to Shri Umrao Singh during his life time, and he had no knowledge about the family settlement having taken place amongst the children of Shri Umrao Singh. The respondent Nos.4 to 8-original defendant Nos.2 to 6, though duly served, had not contested the suit.