KEWAL RAM Vs. MANGU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AND arrears of rent.

(2.) THE facts of the case are rather uncommon, and an interesting question has been raised as to the rights of a sub-tenant. One Nandkumar leased out a 'gokha' (a sort of covered raised platform outside the house) to the plaintiff Mangumal in 1950 A. D at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -. Subsequently Mangumal look on lease an open piece of land situate near the 'gokha' from the Municipal Council, Jaipur on Rs. 12/-per month in the year 1954. On 19. 2. 1961 Mangumal sub-let the 'gokha' as well as the open land on which a cabin had been fixed to the appellant Kewalram on a rent of Rs. 60/- per month. But in order to conceal the sublease made by him, Mangumal got executed a deed of partnership between him and the said Kewalram. This was obviously done in order to save themselves from ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 on the ground of subletting. It appears that for some time the parties palled on well. However, after a few years the parties fell out and on 30. 11. 65 Mangumal filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership against Kewalram on the basis of the partnership deed executed between them on 19 2-1961. Kewalram resisted the suit on the ground that the alleged partnership deed was merely a device to conceal the sub-lease made by the plaintiff in his favour in respect of the 'gokha' and the open land. Mangumal, however, got the suit dismissed as withdrawn on 14-2-1968. It seems, however, that he had made up his mind, before withdrawing the suit, to bring another suit lor ejectment on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant and so he prepared the ground for the same. He served a notice of ejectment dated 22nd September, 1967 on Kewalram alleging therein that Kewalram was his tenant and had committed default in payment of rent and the premises in question meaning thereby the 'gokha' and the land over which the cabin had been constructed, was required for his personal use. He filed the present suit on 2. 3. 1968 for ejectment against Kewalram on two grounds: (i) default in payment of rent, and (ii) personal necessity. Defendant Kewalram resisted the suit. He denied the plaintiff's personal necessity for the premises in question as well as the alleged default in payment of rent. He further pleaded that so far as the 'gokha' was concerned he had attorned in favour of its owner Nandkumar and consequently the sub-lease with respect to the 'gokha' came to an end and Mangumal could not claim ejectment in respect of it.

(3.) IN the view I have taken, the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur with respect to the 'gokha' cannot be maintained. Consequently I allow this appeal in part, set aside the judgment and decree by the learned Additional District Judge in respect of 'gokha' and arrears of rent pertaining thereto and restore the judgment and decree by the trial court. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.