ROOPA RAM Vs. PADAMJI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.80 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sirohi dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the learned Munsif, Abu Road in Civil Original No. 239/75 under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts are as under :

(3.) The appellant (defendant) has been in occupation of the premises in dispute as a tenant under the respondents (plaintiffs). On 10.9.76 the plaintiffs had instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arise^ against the defendant with the allegations that the defendant had been in arrears of rent for the period from 1.5.74 to 31.12.75 and had committed a default in payment of the rent and also that the defendant had constructed a but with the help of brass and bamboos by the side of the building in which the premises in dispute are situated and as such caused nuisance and that this act of the defendant had also adversely and substantially effected the plaintiff and the value of the property in dispute has also been reduced. The suit was contested by the defendant, who denied the grounds taken in the plaint and also denied the rights of the plaintiffs to file the suit. It was also contested on the ground that no valid notice had been served by the plaintiff on the defendant. After framing necessary issues, recording the evidence produced by the parties besides hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had a right to file the suit and that the notice served by them on the defendant was valid but that the defendant had not committed any default in payment of rent but that he had constructed a but near the building in which the premises in dispute is situated and that had partially obstructed the way of the plaintiffs for coming to and going from their house. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendant was heard by the learned Civil Judge, who vide the impugned judgment dated 14.8.80 dismissed the same. Hence, this second appeal.