KUNJ BEHARI Vs. ACHARYA HARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a portion of house situated in Chokri Vishwesarji in the city of Jaipur. The house is popularly known as Nanaji ki Haweli and originally belonged to Thakur Devraj Singh from whom the plaintiffs purchased it by a registered sale deed dated the 25th July, 1960. The plaintiffs had already been running a private college named Jaipur College in a part of this Haweli before they purchased it and the defendant was occupying a portion of the 'haweli' as Thakur Devraj Singh's tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/ -. He attorned in favour of the plaintiffs after they had purchased the whole house. The plaintiffs' case is that they required the premises leased out to the defendant for their own residence as well as lor the purpose of providing a hostel for the scholars of the Jaipur College and Vidhya Mandir College so as to run. both the institutions efficiently and ultimately get them recognised by the Government. They alleged that it was with the aforesaid object that they had purchased the Haweli. Notice dated 22 April, 1963 was served by the plaintiffs on the defendant by registered post terminating the letter's tenancy and thereafter the present suit was filed by them in the court of Munsiff (East), Jaipur on 24 July, 1963. Besides personal necessity, the plaintiffs also relied on ground of default having been committed by the defendant by not paying rent for more than six months. They prayed for a decree for ejectment as well as a money decree for Rs. 2,2750/- on account of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation after the alleged termination of tenancy. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs, suit He denied the plaintiffs' necessity for the premises in question and pleaded that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable as the notice for termination of tenancy being not in accordance with the provisions of secs. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not valid His case was that the premises had been taken on rent for the purpose of running 'diamond Printing Press' as well as for cards and preparing card-board boxes and consequently the lease was for manufacturing purposes terminable by six months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy.

(2.) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree by the trial court the defendant filed appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his judgment and decree dated 2 May, 1972, affirmed the judgment and decree by the trial court. Hence this appeal by the defendant.

(3.) COMING to the evidence, DW/1 Kunj Behari (defendant) has stated that the lease was taken for running a printing press. He has further stated that cardboard boxes, invitation cards, files, registers, envelopes are also prepared in the press. He goes on to state that the telephone-directories of the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are also printed and so also the proceedings of the; Parliament. In the course of cross examination, when confronted with his statement dated 25 October, 1962 recorded in civil suit No. 310 of 1951 Acharya Hari, plaintiff vs. Smt. Bhuri - where in he had stated that he was residing in the house in question, the witness replied that he may have given such a statement. DVV/2 Durgalal has stated that the defendant had taken the premises in question on rent for running a press. In the course of cross-examination he deposed that the defendant was living in a house near the house in question but when he was asked as to where the defendant used to live before that, he pleaded ignorance. DW/3 Kapoor has stated that registers, files and pads are prepared as well as printed in the press. DYV/4 Bhanwarlal has also stated that the premises in question were leased out to the defendant for running a press and not for his residence. The statement of DVV/6 Jagdish Prasad is that the defendant also resides in the suit premises on occasions of marriage. One of the plaintiffs' witnesses viz PW/3 Badri Narayan has stated that the defendant lives in a part of the premises in question. The witness has got his shop in front of the Haweli In the course of cross-examination he has stated that he had seen the defendant living in the premises in question 10 to 12 years ago but for the last year or so the defendant is not living there. The original landlord Thakur Devraj Singh who had leased out the premises in question has not been produced by either party. At this stage it may be noted that the best evidence in the matter would have been the rent-note but the same has not been produced. The plaintiffs' case is that it was not handed over to them by the vendor Thakur Devraj Singh. However, DW/l Kunj Behari has admitted that the premises in question had been taken on lease by him 22 to 23 years ago. His statement was recorded on 19 July 1969. Thus according to this version the period of commencement of the lease comes somewhere in 1946. 47 A D. The witness denies whether any rent-note was executed by him at the time of taking the premises in question on lease. He has also stated that printing press is a partnership business and the partnership came into existence in June 1960. He has also produced the original partnership deed though it has not been exhibited. In para No. 2 of this partnership deed it is mentioned that Kunj Beharilal (defendant No. 1) was carrying on the business of printing press and sale of books as a proprietor since 1955. This partnership deed admittedly bears the signatures of Kunj Beharilal. It is clear from this partnership deed that the printing press had been started by the defendant in 1955 whereas according to the defendant himself the premises in question were taken on rent sometime in 1946 47 A. D. This would show that the printing press was started by the defendant about 9 years after he had taken the lease of the suit premises. This takes the wind of the defendant's case out of sail and the defendant's case stands falsified by his own admission contained in his statement and the partnership deed. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the defendant's version that the suit premises were leased out for running a printing press. Besides that it appears to me that the defendant also resided in the premises in question after taking the same on rent. Even his witness DW/6 Jagdish Prasad has admitted that the premises were used for residence on occasions like marriage etc. In this view of the matter, the learned District Judge was not wrong in drawing inference that at any rate the premises were taken on rent for multipurposes, i. e. for running printing press as well as for residence. Such a multi-purpose cannot be considered a manufacturing purpose and if an authority is needed, reference may be made to Sati Prasanna Mukhejee vs. Mh. Faze (l), wherein it was held that a lease for mixed or multi-purposes like dwelling purposes, for setting up a printing press and for ordinary business purposes is not a lease for 'manufacturing purpose' within the meaning of sec. 106 but is within the meaning of the words for 'any other purpose' used later in that section.