BAPU LAL Vs. ASSOCIATED TRADERS AND ENGINEERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Udaipur dated February 2, 1994 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for closing the evidence of the defendant-non-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-non-petitioner. The amounts of rent and interest were determined under Section 13 (3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Ejectment) Act, 1950. The defendant failed to deposit the rent and its defence was struck out. An application was moved by the plaintiff for closing the evidence of the defendant in pursuance of the order striking out its defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court permitted the defendant to produce its evidence on Issue No. 5 and dismissed the plaintiff's application.

(3.) IT appears from the impugned order that the defendant-non-petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties and as a result thereof Issue No. 5 has been framed to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist in between the parties? By the impugned order the trial court has permitted the defendant to produce its evidence on this issue. It has been observed in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, A.I.R. 1989 SC 162 at page 170 para 11 (end) as follows :-