SATYA NARAIN Vs. BAJRANG LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bajrang Lal, landlord plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of Satya Narain tenant in respect of the shop in question situated in Bhiloara. The rate of rent admitted to be Rs. 45.00 per month. It is said that one Sharda Bai was the owner landlord of the shop in question and vide a sale deed Ex. 1 dated 22-8-1972 said Sharda Bai sold out the shop in question to the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant appellant has become the tenant for the shop in question. Ex. 2 is the rent note which the tenant is stated to have executed in favour of Sharda Bai and after the purchase a notice was given by the landlord, which is Ex. 3 and there was another notice given by Sharda Bai to the tenant which is Ex. 4, stating that she had sold out the shop in question to the plaintiff. Exs. 5 and 6 are the postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex. 8 are the proceedings from a suit where the tenant had admitted the status of Sharda Bai. The plaintiff sought the eviction of the tenant defendant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and that he required the suit premises for the own use and occupation and in reply the tenant denied that Sharda Bai had any concern with the shop in question or that she was the landlord.

(2.) Learned Court under issue Nos. 6 and 8 observed that there was convincing evidence on the record that the defendant was the tenant of the plaitniff and the defendant had accepted in the statement that Sharda Bai was the landlord and that he was estopped from denying the title and the plea taken by the tenant in the written-statement that one Sita Ram is also the owner of the shop in question along with Sharda Bai was not acceptable. Reliance was placed on portion A to B in Ex. 8 which is an admission on the part of the tenant particularly when Sita Ram himself has denied this aspect that he is the landlord of the premises in question. Further the receipts of rent Exs. Al to A3 and A7 to A9 have been accepted and admitted by the tenant and signatures of Sharda Bai are accepted. Taking into consideration all these factors, documents and attending circumstances a firm finding was written by the trial court that Sharda Bai is the owner of the premises in question and thereby issue Nos. 6 and 8 were held in favour of the plaintiff. On the question of issue No. 1 relating to the execution of the sale-deed after analysing the evidence on record the learned Court found that the shop in question stands sold out by Sharda Bai and that the plaintiff had become its owner on the strength of the sale-deed 22-8-1972 Ex. 1. On issues Nos. 2 and 9 whether the suit premises are bona fide required for the plaintiff's own use and occupation and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. The learned Court found both these issues in favour of the defendant tenant and against the plaintiff landlord. Consequently the suit was dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved against the decision of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate an appeal was taken to the District Judge and there an amendement was sought so as to plead the ground of eviction as given in Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'). Section 13(1) (f) reads as under:-