MANOHAR SINGH Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 5.1.1987 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 20.12.1983.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-respondent-tenant with the allegations that the suit property was let out to the defendant on 27.11.1965 on rent of Rs.40/- per month. The first ground for eviction was default in payment of rent by the tenant and the second was the ground that part of the suit premises has been sub-let to one Paras Ram s/o Virumal on rent of Rs.60/- per month and Paras Ram put his cabin to run the betel shop. The defendant further sub-let the part of the shop to one Kailash s/o Manak Lal and he was permitted to run his tailoring shop in the suit shop. The plaintiff before filing the suit, gave notice to the defendant but the defendant refused to accept the notice. Then the plaintiff affixed the notice on the shop. Said notice was not replied by the defendant.

(3.) The defendant submitted written statement and denied the default in payment of the rent and submitted that the portion over which the Pan shop is there, that is run by the defendant himself and it has not been sub-let to Paras Ram. The defendant also stated that any portion of the shop has not been sub-let to Kailash but the defendant himself is doing his business. The issues were framed and the parties produced evidence. The relevant evidence for the purpose of deciding the issues of sub-letting was statement of the plaintiff himself and his witness PW-4 Jai Singh. In rebuttal, the defendant alone appeared in the witness-box. The trial court held the defendant-tenant defaulter in payment of rent but did not pass the eviction decree as it was the first default of the tenant in payment of the rent and the decree for eviction could not have been passed as the tenant was entitled for one benefit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1950. The trial court held that the plaintiff fully proved the case of sub-letting and decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant by judgment and decree dated 20.12.1983. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 20.12.1983, the defendant-tenant preferred regular first appeal. The appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.1.1987. Hence this second appeal.