KISHAN LAL Vs. SHIV CHARAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant appellant has preferred the instant second appeal against judgment and decree dated 20.9.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2013 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Kotputli, District Jaipur, in a suit for eviction and arrears instituted by the respondent plaintiffs under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the defendant appellant contended that both the courts committed a grave error in ignoring the pivotal fact that notice under section 106 TP Act was given only to one of the joint tenant and in absence of any notice on the other joint tenants, the suit for eviction was bound to fail and further contended that admittedly even receipt of the registry produced on record show only the name of Shanker Lal and thus, there was no sufficient notice. Learned counsel further contended that the defendant has spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- upon construction and repair of shop and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the erstwhile owner Smt. Koyali Devi as pagri, but no issue was framed upon these vital aspects and as such the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are perverse and illegal. Learned counsel also relied on Chintaman and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another AIR 1997 SC 448, Narayan v. Gopal AIR 1960 SC 100, Budh Sen v. Sheet Chandra Agarwal and Others AIR 1978 Allahabad 88, Nanna v. Hafiz Abdul Saleem 1999 DNJ [Raj.] 341, V. Konnappan v. Mangot Velia Kunniyil Manikkam and others AIR 1968 Kerala 229, Himmat Singh v. Manohar Singh and Others 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 155.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent landlord supporting the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below urged that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and no interference is warranted under Section 100 CPC against concurrent finding returned by both the courts below. Learned counsel contended that notice was to both the tenants and the Postal department only mentions name of the first person and as both the brothers were living together, the notice could not have been denied by the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that even in the cross examination of the appellant himself he had accepted that he had received a notice of eviction and when he himself has admitted to it, the finding recorded by both the courts below is well reasoned and is not required to be interfered. Learned counsel also contended that the claim of the appellant was denied by Smt. Koyali Devi. Learned counsel also relied upon judgments rendered in the case of Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay AIR 1963 SC 468, M/s. Park Street Properties (Pvt) Limited v. Dipak Kumar Singh and Another AIR 2016 SC 4038, Budh Sen v. Sheel Chandra Agarwal and Others (supra), Shri Nath and Another v. Smt. Saraswati Devi Jaiswal AIR 1964 Allahabad 52.