MISHRI LAL NAGAR Vs. PREM KUMARS BHATYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the following circumstances: Appellant Mishit Lal took the suit premises from the respondent, Smt Prem Kumari on rent under the rent note Ex. 1 dated 10 -8 -63. This was a monthly tenancy commencing from 11 -8 -63 Rs. 200/ - per month were payable as rent in advance in addition to the house -tax. The tenancy was for a fixed period of 11 months. It was also stipulated that one month's notice will be required for seeking eviction of the tenant. One of the terms of the tenancy was that the suit premises will be used only for dwelling purpose not for any commercial purpose. It is admitted that the rent was paid upto 10 -9 -64 On 5 -12 -64 a notice determining tenancy was served on the tenant calling upon him to surrender vacant possession of the suit permises. It was alleged in the note that the tenant had started using the premises for commercial purposes in as much as he has been keeping machineries in the suit premises. The tenant received the notice but declined to hand over possession. In the result Smt. Premkumari instituted this suit under appeal on 3 -6 -1965. She sought eviction of the tenant inter alia on the ground that the tenant had started using the suit premises in contravention of the agreement and that he had not paid rent and damages for use and occupation of the premises for 8 1/2 months i. e. from 11 -9 -64 to 26 -6 -65. She prayed for a decree for Rs. 1806.25 inclusive of the house -tax and recovery of possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE tenant by his written statement dated 27 -9 -65 dented the the plaintiff's claim. He admitted the execution of the rent note, the tenancy and the rate of rent payable to the landlord per month. He also admitted to have paid rent upto 10 -9 -64 but it was contended that the landlady was responsible for not having accepted the rent. He denied the plaintiff's plea that he was using the suit premises for any commercial purpose. According to him he has been using the suit property for the purpose it was let out to him.

(3.) IT may as well be noticed here that the landlady during her examination admitted that the construction of the suit house was completed in the year 1963 and it was given on rent for the first time to the appellant Mishri Lal. This fact also finds mention in the rent note. On this premise it was argued on behalf of the tenant in the trial Court that in view of Section 2(2)(e) of of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 herein after refferred to as 'the Act') was not applicable. This position was conceded by the counsel for the landlady. The learned trial Judge however decided all the issues. He found issue No. 1 against the defendant. This issue contained the plea of the defendant that inspite of the rent note dated 10 -8 -63 it was argeed between the parties that the defendant will put his machines in addition to his residence therein. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the defendant had started keeping his machines in the disputed premises for his business Issue No. 3 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the plaintiff or her servants did not refuse to accept the rent ever tendered by the defendants. Issue No. 4 was found against the plaintiff, and the plea of the plaintiff that the tenant committed nuisance was negatived. Under issue No. 5 the learned Judge concluded that no new tenancy was created. Finally under issue No. 6 he held the notice determining tenancy to be valid.