KISHNA RAM Vs. MANJU LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant -tenant -Kishna Ram @ Kishan Lal s/o Moti Ram Ji, who unfortunately died during the pendency of present second appeal on 2/9/2013 and is now represented by his legal representatives, namely; Smt. Saraswati (wife), Anand Kumar & Om Prakash (sons) and Smt. Sumitra w/o Bhoma Ram Prajapat (Daughter), had filed the present second appeal on 19/11/1994 against the plaintiff -respondent -landlady Smt. Manju Lata w/o Madan Mohan Ji Chhipa being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of eviction given by the two courts below in respect of the suit house situated near Shiv Mandir, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

(2.) THE tenancy was created in favour of the defendant -tenant -Kishna Ram on 7/6/1979 through the Rent Note executed by him in favour of landlady Smt. Manju Lata @ Rs. 65/ - per month, which he paid regularly upto 7/1/1980 as per the endorsements made on the backside of the Rent Note and, thereafter, he stopped payment of rent. The eviction suit was filed by Manju Lata, who purchased the said suit property from one Nirmala Devi by registered sale deed dated 8/9/83 (the sale took place on 5/6/1979 but sale deed was executed on 8/9/83, as stated in the Sale Deed Ex.2) for Rs. 40,000/ - and after such purchase, the aforesaid rent note was executed by Kishna Ram in favour of Manju Lata on 7/6/1979 only in respect of one room outside the said residential house in which besides two shops on the road side, two other rooms, Kitchen & chowk were also there. The tenants of these two other shops also started paying rent to the purchaser Smt. Manju Lata upon statutory attornment in her favour of the said property by Smt. Nirmala Devi but despite Rent Note executed by him, after six months he stopped paying rent to the landlady. The eviction suit was filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, denial of title of landlady, bonafide need of the suit premises for the landlady and her family members, material alterations made in the suit property without the consent of the landlady and nuisance caused by the tenant by the noise of the sewing machines on which he worked as a Tailor.

(3.) THE learned trial court, however, in the present eviction suit determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 on 21/9/1987 and appeal against which filed by Kishna Ram was also decided by the appellate court on 17/5/1988 and while defendant tenant Kishna Ram was directed to deposit the arrears of rent & continue to deposit the monthly rent but the landlady Smt. Manju Lata was restrained from withdrawing the said rent from the court. The defence of the defendant tenant against eviction was struck off in terms of Section 13(5) on 28/5/1991 since Kishna Ram did not comply with the said order & paid the rent and the appeal filed by the defendant tenant Kishna Ram against the order dated 28/5/1991 was also dismissed by the learned appellate court of Addl.District Judge No. 2,Jodhpur on 14/1/1993. The eviction suit was ultimately decreed by the trial court deciding the various issues in favour of the plaintiff on 3/3/1994 on the basis of plaintiffs evidence.