FATEH SINGH Vs. CHANDRA SHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Sec.96 CPC challenges the judgment & decree dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.475/04 (Chandra Sekhar Bohra Vs. Hari Singh, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been decreed against defendant-appellant and the trial Court has passed the decree of eviction against the defendant directing him to vacate and handover the disputed premises to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The learned Court has also directed the defendant to pay due rent Rs.2,700/- to the plaintiff and has fixed the standard rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit and also held the plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation from defendant @ Rs.1,000/- from September 2002 till handing over of vacant possession.

(2.) It is worth stating here that the appellant-defendant, who has filed the present appeal, before filing of this appeal on 08.05.2006, approached the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and filed an application under Sec.18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for interim injunction against non-applicant plaintiff-respondent No.1 Chandra Shekar with the averments that his father Bhanwar Singh had taken the premises of the ownership of non-applicant on rent in the year 1972 and a rent deed in respect of the tenancy was executed in between them on which the entry with regard to the rent paid from time to time was made. It was stated that his father Bhanwar Singh died on 11.01.1997 in the said tenanted premises and he being his son was in use and occupation of it. It was further stated that his father Late Bhanwar Singh in his bank account got entered the address of the premises and their ration card also mentioned this address. He stated that he has paid rent for the period uptil 2005, however, non-applicant Chandra Shekhar, who is an influential person, on 06.04.2006 threatened him to vacate the premises, so non-applicant Chandra Shekar be restrained from evicting him without taking legal recourse. The non-applicant Chandra Shekar replying the application stated that the applicant's father had vacated the house in question and handed over the possession to his uncle Hari Singh against whom a decree has been passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur on 13.02.2006 and the applicant wrongly showing himself to be the tenant of the premises has filed the application on wrong and baseless facts so the application be rejected. The Tribunal rejected the application on 24.04.2006 referring to the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on the issues framed in the suit. The appeal filed by Fateh Chand in respect of rejection of his application came to be decided by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 25.05.2006 citing the principle propounded by the Apex Court that in cases where decree has been passed and proceedings in respect of possession are pending, the objections in respect of any hindrance in possession can be decided only by the court passing the decree. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that filing of separate suit in the circumstances is barred by Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and came to the conclusion that on merit also the appellant (Fateh Singh) has failed to produce any rent receipt for the rent paid by him after 1986 and the Death Certificate of Bhanwar Singh issued in 1997 bears the address of Bhanwar Singh as R.S.E.B. Colony, Shastri Nagar, which shows that the appellant had got prepared a forged Death Certificate and got entered the residential address of Bhanwar Singh as Rampole ki Bari and hence dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

(3.) Appellant Fateh Singh, in the present appeal, has come with the case that respondent No.1 Chandra Shekar had filed the suit for eviction and fixing of standard rent against respondent No.2 Hari Singh (uncle of appellant) and sent a notice showing Hari Singh as the tenant of Chandra Shekar, which was denied by Hari Singh and he refused any relationship in between them of landlord and tenant and that suit was decreed against Hari Singh. It has been alleged that father of appellant Late Bhanwar Singh was also a tenant in the premises in respect of which the decree was obtained by respondent No.1 Chandra Shekar and the respondent also accepted his tenancy @ Rs.23/- per month from 27.12.1976 and in respect of which one rent note was also written in between his father and respondent No.1 and as such the tenancy was clearly established, however, he was not impleaded in the suit. The respondent No.2 denied his tenancy or the ownership of respondent No.1 in reply and stated himself to be the owner of the house in question, however, ultimately decree was passed in favour of respondent No.1 on 13.02.2006. It is also his case that though on the basis of reply of respondent No.2 to the notice the Court had framed a issue but resultantly the rights of the appellant have been marred as the said issue was decided in his absence without hearing him. It has been emphasized that the possession of the rented premises was never handed over to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 is clearly wrong in his statement that after taking possession of the tenanted premises on 1.11.1986 from appellant it was rented to respondent No.2 on the very same day. The appellant, who was not a party to the suit before the learned court below, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the decree dated 13.02.2006. He alongwith the appeal has filed an application for permission to file the appeal.