CHAND BAI Vs. RAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per office report, Application dated 04/03/2003 has not been filed but the counsel for the appellant has produced before this Court today the copy of the Application dated 04/03/2003. As the original application has been misplaced by the office, copy of the same has been admitted on record.

(2.) The matter is taken up on Application dated 04/03/2003 re-numbered as Application No.5985 dated 10/03/2015 filed on behalf of the appellant u/S.151 CPC.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that Shri Rajmal Jain was the original tenant, who has died and none of his legal heirs were carrying on business with him in the disputed premises upto his death hence, none of the successor of late Shri Rajmal Jain could be said to be the 'tenant' within the definition of Section 3(vii)(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, the "Act of 1950") and decree for eviction be allowed to the appellant. In support of the application, affidavit has been filed. The straight contention of the appellant is that Shri Rajmal Jain has died and none of his legal heirs were carrying on business in the disputed premises and they are not protected under the Act of 1950. Admittedly, wife of the deceased is a 'pardanashin lady' and she is not working in the shop. Other legal heirs viz. Shri Paras Chand Jain, son of the deceased has appeared before the trial court as DW2 with the specific contention that he is working in another shop in the name & style of Porwal Bartan Bhandar and DW1-late Shri Rajmal Jain had also testified the same fact before the court below. The other legal heirs are married daughters and they are residing with their husband seperately and none are working in the disputed premises upto the death of Shri Rajmal Jain. Therefore, none of the legal heirs are protected under the Act of 1950 as they could not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as provided u/S.3(vii)(b).