YASH DEVA Vs. MAYO COLLEGE AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from bungalow No. B-6 situated in the campus of the Mayo College, Ajmer and also for arrears of rent and future rent mesne profits as also for water charges.

(2.) THE plaintiff, Secretary, Mayo College, General Council, Ajmer, filed the suit on 4th September, 1967 alleging that by resolution No. 14 dated 25th February, 1967 the General Council had decided to start a Preparatory School, and also to take steps to get the Staff Quarters at Alwar Gate, Ajmer, vacated from the present occupants for the said purpose. It was alleged that the bungalow No. B-6, which was in occupation of the defendant, as tenant of the plaintiff, was reasonably and bona fide required for educational purposes by the plantiff. Besides the agreed rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month, water charges at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month were also claimed. So far as the claim for rent is concerned, there is no dispute. THE two points of dispute between the parties are: (1) that the premises are not required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff and in any case, under the law, the plaintiff in not entitled to get a decree for ejectment; and (2) that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any decree for water charges. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Munsiff, Ajmer City (East), Ajmer, by his judgment dated April 13, 1971, decreed the plaintiff's suit and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) IT is true that in the notice Ex. A/1 of 1965 the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to pay enhanced rent from 1st October, 1965 at the rate of Rs. 1112. 50 per month. However, from this fact alone, it cannot be inferred, unless there are strong circumstances pointing to the contrary that in 1967 the authorities concerned manoeuvred and manipulated the scheme for the sole purpose of ousting the defendant. There is no denying the fact that the Resolution dated 25th February, 1967 (Ex. 2) was passed by the General Council of the Mayo College, Ajmer. This resolution was pleaded in para No. 2 of the plaint. The defendant pleaded want of knowledge and put the plaintiff to proof and pleaded in the alternative that even if such a resolution had been passed, it was against the interest of the college. PW1 Nand Kishore. who is the Estate Officer of the Mayo College, Ajmer, has stated that the Mayo College, Ajmer, General Council is a registered body and that the Resolution has been passed by the General Council for starting a Preparatory School. PW 2 Shantilal brought the original minute book of the Mayo College, General Council, Ajmer, and stated that Resolution No. 14 dated 25th February, 1967 was contained in it, and the same had been signed by Bhim Singh, and STM Gibson, with whose signatures he is acquainted. No evidence has been led by the defendant on this point. IT must, therefore be accepted that the resolution Ex. 2 is a genuine document.