KAILA DEVI Vs. BISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff Mst. Kaila Devi against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. She filed a suit for ejectment and rent for one month against the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had made certain constructions which had materially altered the premises and were likely to diminish the value thereof. The defendants denied having made any such constructions and pleaded that whatever alterations they had made were for the purposes of improving and beautifying the premises. The learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur, who tried the case came to the conclusion that the defendants had made certain constructions which had materially altered the premises and were likely to diminish the value thereof. It was also held that the defendants were trying to convert the premises into a temple which was inconsistent with the purpose with which the defendants were entered as tenants. On these findings the suit for ejectment as well as for rent, was decreed. The defendants went in appeal. During the pendency of it, the lower appellate court with the consent of both the parties appointed Shri Girraj Singh, Commissioner, who inspected the locality and filed a report dated the 27th of February, 1952. Parties were given three day's time to file objections if any against the report and the plaintiff appellant filed a long list of objections on the 29th of February. 1952. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the report of the Commissioner, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree so far as ejectment was concerned. Against this judgment and decree, the plaintiff has come in appeal to this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. C. Kasliwal on behalf of appellant. No body appears on behalf of the respondents It has been argued by Mr. Kasliwal that the learned District Judge did not at all consider the objections although a number of objections were filed against the Commissioner's report. Simply acting on the report of the Commissioner and without going into other evidence which had been produced in the case, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the first court, which was not proper.