SANT SINGH Vs. BHAGWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the decree for eviction from the suit shop passed by both the learned courts below.

(2.) THE facts of the case are, that on 14.9.1974, the plaintiffs, who are legal representatives of the deceased landlord Mangha Ram, filed the present suit alleging interalia, that the defendant had taken the shop in question on rent from him on 1.8.1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-, for carrying on his own business, and stipulating to pay electricity charges according to the meter reading, and to pay meter rent. Boundaries of the shop are given in the plaint. Mangha Ram is said to have expired on 5.5.1970. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid rent after 31.7.1973, and thus has committed default in payment of rent. THEn, in para-5 it was alleged, that the defendant has sublet the suit shop to Trilok Singh without permission of the plaintiff, and therefore, also he is liable to eviction. A notice was given on 11.3.1974, but to no good. Thus, the suit has been filed for eviction, arrears of rent, electricity charges, and the meter rent etc.

(3.) LEARNED trial court after completing the trial held, that the defendant has paid the rent on the first date of hearing, and has thereafter been paying rent regularly, therefore, he is not a defaulter. Then, the next issue, being issue no. 2, was decided against the defendant. While deciding this issue it was considered, that an important piece of evidence is rent note Ex.- 1, which has been proved by Prakash Kurani, and Harish. It was also considered that Jagan Singh, while in the witness box has admitted that this rent note was executed by the defendant. Then, it was considered, that it was on 2.9.1969, that Santok Singh took the shop on rent from Mangha Ram, for carrying on his own business, while the case of the defendant is, that he took the shop from his father Jagan Singh, but then when rent note was executed in presence of Jagan Singh, it has to be assumed that Jagan Singh surrendered his tenancy, and permitted new tenancy to commence in favour of Santok Singh. It was also considered, that as defendant's evidence states, that the rent note was executed in the name of Santok Singh, otherwise the plaintiff wanted the shop to be evicted. Even from this it is clear, that the plaintiff did not want the joint tenancy in favour of the defendant and his father, rather he wanted to give shop to Santok Singh only. Then, it was considered that it is not the defendant's case that he and his father constitutes Joint Hindu Family, and therefore, it cannot be said that the shop has been given to Trilok Singh as a member of the family of the tenant. Then, the evidence of Anand Bihari Lal Mathur has been considered, who has proved various documents of registration, license etc. under Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, which proves that the name of the shop in question has been changed to Sardar Radio Service since 1973 vide Ex.-4, proprietor whereof is Trilok Singh, and on the reverse side thereof it is written by Trilok Singh himself, that he has started the shop some two years ago, and before that he had no shop. In the opinion of the learned trial court, this recital knocks down the very bottom of the defendant's case. Then, it has been considered that Trilok Singh has not been produced in evidence. Then, the receipts Ex. A-1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11, 13, and 14 have been considered, and it has been held, that they all relate to the period, prior to commencement of the tenancy, and after the new rent note Ex.1 has been executed, no receipt was issued in the name of Jagan Singh. With these conclusions it was held, that the defendant has sublet the shop to his brother, and thus he has parted with the possession of the shop in favour of his brother, and thus the issue has been decided against the defendant. Deciding issue no. 3 it was held, that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the rent @ Rs. 80/- per month. Then, issue no. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Then, deciding issue no. 5 notice was found to be valid. Then, issue no. 6 was decided against the defendant, holding that the very shape of the shop had been changed. In the result, the suit for eviction was decreed, along with the arrears of rent, and electricity charges, and meter rent.