RAM PYARI MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellantplaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No.50/2012, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 26/9/2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.30/06 (617/96), whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') for declaration and permanent injunction in which plaintiff sought the relief to declare the order dtd. 17/10/1996 as void ab initio against the illegal recovery of lease amount. In plaint, plaintiff stated that plaintiff applied for allotment of poultry farm for 1500 sq. mtr. Lease deed was executed on 30/1/1986 between the plaintiff and defendants. As per terms and conditions of the lease deed, lease was for 25 years at Rs.25.00 yearly lease amount. Plaintiff got the possession from the date of registration of the lease deed. Plaintiff herself constructed a building and boundary wall of the poultry farm. The plaintiff did her best efforts to run the poultry farm but the defendants failed to provide the basic facilities of Doctors, water, electricity. So, she could not run the poultry farm properly. Defendants issued a show cause notice dtd. 4/5/1995 mentioning therein that allotment of the poultry farm of the plaintiff be cancelled on account of breach of condition No.3, 9 and 12 of the lease deed. It was also submitted that inspection report dtd. 30/3/1995 was prepared in absence of the plaintiff. It was also submitted that the defendants issued a cyclostyle order dtd. 17/10/1996, wherein the plaintiff was held guilty for breach of the conditions No.3, 9 and 12 of the lease deed and condition No.26 of the allotment letter. Defendants filed the written statement and admitted that construction of the required building was made by the plaintiff but she had not maintained required chicks during the period from 1992 to 1995 except May 1992. So, lease deed of the plaintiff was rightly cancelled. Land in question is agriculture land. So, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_147_LAWS(RAJ)5_2025_1.jpg</IMG> To prove its case, plaintiff got herself examined as PW1-Smt Ram Pyari. Defendants got examined as DW-1-Pratap Singh Nagar.

(2.) After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 26/9/2012, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dtd. 29/8/2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 26/9/2012 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as also the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The trial court as well as appellate court gave finding contrary to the law and provision and had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. As per the conditions of the lease deed, defendants had to provide basic facilities but they had not provided water, doctors and chicks. So, plaintiff could not run the poultry farm properly. Inspection report was also made in the absence of the plaintiff. Inspection report was not properly proved by the defendants but trial court gave the perverse findings. So, present appeal be admitted on the substantial question of law mentioned in the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that as per the lease deed, there was a provision that if the plaintiff failed to comply the conditions mentioned in the lease deed, then defendants had right to cancel it. During the inspection, no poultry farm was found running there. Inspection report was exhibited by the defendants. At the time of the inspection, there was no chicks in the poultry farm. So, defendants rightly cancelled the lease deed and rightly dispossessed the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out. So, present appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants.